Not a Gaffe: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Iraq

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Woops! Sorry about that. Obama's numbers have been declining a bit and he has been receiving more and more negative publicity. His misstatements are not going unnoticed.

Correlation does not equal causation, and this still does not explain the specific link I questioned earlier, although I see what you're saying - this seems a bit dismissive, to be honest.

Besides this, I think there is a sea of difference between "declining a bit" and "shake up his campaign's foundation" (which is how you described it). Negative publicity could be purely based on the natural publicity (or smear) push by the opposition at this point in the election cycle, and I see no evidence that his recanting on his promise to participate in the publicly-funded campaign finance program has had any effect whatsoever or that the average person even a.) knows it happened or b.) what it means as far as credibility or strategy.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Besides this, I think there is a sea of difference between "declining a bit" and "shake up his campaign's foundation" (which is how you described it).

I said shake up his campaign's foundation "a bit." McCain has been hitting Obama harder than ever to illustrate the differences between their military/foreign relations experience. There wouldn't be as great a need to do so if he'd had a clean run on his military/foreign relations experience. He has had to overcompensate for the blunders he's made in speaking on issues he should know about.

As I mentioned, I don't see his blunders disqualifying him or changing the way his supporters view him, but they do cause problems for the campaign and the way he markets himself.

Negative publicity could be purely based on the natural publicity (or smear) push by the opposition at this point in the election cycle, and I see no evidence that his recanting on his promise to participate in the publicly-funded campaign finance program has had any effect whatsoever or that the average person even a.) knows it happened or b.) what it means as far as credibility or strategy.

Obama is no longer that far ahead of McCain in the polls despite a healthy headstart. You don't think that has anything to do with the things Obama has said and done?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

McCain has been hitting Obama harder than ever to illustrate the differences between their military/foreign relations experience. There wouldn't be as great a need to do so if he'd had a clean run on his military/foreign relations experience. He has had to overcompensate for the blunders he's made in speaking on issues he should know about.

As I mentioned, I don't see his blunders disqualifying him or changing the way his supporters view him, but they do cause problems for the campaign and the way he markets himself.

You say this like it is fact, when it's actually opinion. Can you back this up with specific instances? I understand that's kind of a tall order, but I just don't see it, and I'd love to know where you're coming from.

Actually, let me rephrase - I can see what you're saying here, and I think it's certainly possible. I just don't share your opinion that it is actually happening in the court of public opinion.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Obama is no longer that far ahead of McCain in the polls despite a healthy headstart. You don't think that has anything to do with the things Obama has said and done?

There is a massive difference in saying "the things Obama has said and done" and noting a specific issue such as his campaign finance 180 - that's my point: it's platitudes at this point, not specific issues or feelings.

Because of that, unless there is a pattern of mistakes like this for McCain, I highly doubt the instance noted in the article will really matter in a substantive fashion (or represent a "shake up").

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because of that, unless there is a pattern of mistakes like this for McCain, I highly doubt the instance noted in the article will really matter in a substantive fashion (or represent a "shake up").

It's possible that I completely misread the original article, but it seemed like it was saying that this IS a pattern for McCain. And, it's a pattern that is backed up elsewhere.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

It's possible that I completely misread the original article, but it seemed like it was saying that this IS a pattern for McCain. And, it's a pattern that is backed up elsewhere.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11939.html

I'm sorry - I was unclear when I used the term "pattern."

My point is that, regardless of whether there is a pattern, the more important issue is whether the average American perceives that there is a pattern. I don't see evidence of this, and in fact your point about Obama's shrinking lead seems contrary to your main point.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm sorry - I was unclear when I used the term "pattern."

My point is that, regardless of whether there is a pattern, the more important issue is whether the average American perceives that there is a pattern.

Perhaps I'm not in tune with what the average American perceives, but it appears to me that the polls loosely follow what the media decides to publicize. I see a correlation, but I'm also reading, listening and watching. I tend to take political commentaries (along with the media's attention to the candidates) with a grain of salt. I think both candidates have said some idiotic things and I also know there are people out there who are drastically affected by the ebb and flow of information.

[ASTalumna06]

I can agree that both sides have said some “idiotic” things, as preciousjeni put it. But at the same time, I can not vote for a freshman senator, who has virtually no experience in politics. What does anyone even know about him, besides the fact that he’s black and he wants the whole world to know it?

Obama is currently a U.S. senator who has yet to finish his first term in office. He served for seven years in the Illinois state Senate. He ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 2000, and lost in the primary. He’s written a few books, and in 2006 he won a Grammy.

And… that’s it.

The last time the citizens of the U.S. elected a president directly from the Senate (which rarely happens) was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy took office. And he was a World War II veteran, a three-term U.S. Congressman, and was serving in his second term in the Senate when he was elected.

And you want to talk about screwing up while speaking? How about the speech Obama made just last week in Berlin where he apologized to the Germans? In my opinion, someone who is not nationally recognized as being a representative of this country (remember, he hasn’t been elected!) should not be permitted to make statements of this magnitude, especially when dealing with foreign countries.

And let’s not forget… he apologized to the Germans! Why?! Because we helped to stop the holocaust and defeat Nazism? Or is it because we reunified their country after creating conditions that lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall? No, maybe it’s because we ensured the freedom of West Germany during the Cold War and caused the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

But hey, at least he was wearing an American flag pin.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

And let’s not forget… he apologized to the Germans! Why?! Because we helped to stop the holocaust and defeat Nazism? Or is it because we reunified their country after creating conditions that lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall? No, maybe it’s because we ensured the freedom of West Germany during the Cold War and caused the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

Could someone post a quote of the part of this speech's transcript where he apologized? I didn't see the speech, but I read the transcript and I'm not seeing it. I might just be overlooking it though.