Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[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.

[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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

What makes you think that Obama is farther to the left than his positions and solutions to issues indicate on his website? They seem pretty far left to me (farther than I'm totally comfortable with). However, McCain is also moving further right in his speeches and campaign than he was during the 2000 primaries, so what should believe there?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

What makes you think that Obama is farther to the left than his positions and solutions to issues indicate on his website? They seem pretty far left to me (farther than I'm totally comfortable with). However, McCain is also moving further right in his speeches and campaign than he was during the 2000 primaries, so what should believe there?

Well, with McCain, you've got a pretty long voting record to go on which I would think would be predictive of what he actually believes and would do.

Rhetorically, I think he has to go right since he was pretty center and hopes to set himself apart and attract people more conservative than himself to the polls. I don't think he can expect to pull enough of the middle away from Obama to win without getting conservatives to believe it's important to elect him.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

What makes you think that Obama is farther to the left than his positions and solutions to issues indicate on his website? They seem pretty far left to me (farther than I'm totally comfortable with). However, McCain is also moving further right in his speeches and campaign than he was during the 2000 primaries, so what should believe there?

McCain is not, by any stretch, a far-right conservative. I hope he does move further right, but he's not even close to extreme.

I believe Obama is far left because of his associations, his statements, his past and his penchant for social engineering. I've seen similarly veiled statements from academics who acknowledge their socialistic tendencies and who focus on the destruction of the status quo with regard to economics.

Contrast Obama with someone like Hillary, who I believe to be a liberal opportunist. The latter, though politically dissimilar from my views, does not embrace the core of the far left. I think Obama understands and embraces those views.

[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 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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

Yup. Just like last time.

Granted, there's a lot at stake here. That's why I would be a lot happier if both sides would present honest and respectful campaigns.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Yup. Just like last time.

Granted, there's a lot at stake here. That's why I would be a lot happier if both sides would present honest and respectful campaigns.

And actually, it seems that the candidates themselves are going to be eager to pretend that they are.

[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.