Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jon1856

^^^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.

In the most recent Democratic gubernatorial primary in NC, after months of mudslinging, one candidate said "no more." While her opponent continued to sling mud, she didn't -- she talked about her positions and her agenda. Certainly, it could be argued that she wouldn't have done it had she not already had a comfortable lead (she had held a strong lead in the polls that had been whittled away), but the fact is she trounced her opposition and gots lots of praise for "going clean."

We'll see what happens between now and November.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

Or worse, depending on how you look at it. (And I look at it as one who came of age with Jesse Helms and the Congressional Club.) I'm not sure that being better at calumny is really something to aspire to.

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.

And I have no problem with this if it's done honestly and above-board. What I have witnessed all to often (again, Jesse Helms, the Congressional Club and others) is that it is anything but honest and above-board -- it is done by twisting words, by misrepresenting the facts and by playing to fears and prejudices. And (sorry Shinerbock) I think it represents the worst form of political machinations -- the idea that the American people must be lied to and mislead in order to protect them from themselves and to "save the Republic." I find that much more frightening than the prospect of a very liberal or very conservative president.

It always makes me wonder if the candidate really doesn't believe that he can (or should) be elected on his own merit.

[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 MysticCat

In the most recent Democratic gubernatorial primary in NC, after months of mudslinging, one candidate said "no more." While her opponent continued to sling mud, she didn't -- she talked about her positions and her agenda. Certainly, it could be argued that she wouldn't have done it had she not already had a comfortable lead (she had held a strong lead in the polls that had been whittled away), but the fact is she trounced her opposition and gots lots of praise for "going clean."

We'll see what happens between now and November.

Or worse, depending on how you look at it. (And I look at it as one who came of age with Jesse Helms and the Congressional Club.) I'm not sure that being better at calumny is really something to aspire to.

And I have no problem with this if it's done honestly and above-board. What I have witnessed all to often (again, Jesse Helms, the Congressional Club and others) is that it is anything but honest and above-board -- it is done by twisting words, by misrepresenting the facts and by playing to fears and prejudices. And (sorry Shinerbock) I think it represents the worst form of political machinations -- the idea that the American people must be lied to and mislead in order to protect them from themselves and to "save the Republic." I find that much more frightening than the prospect of a very liberal or very conservative president.

It always makes me wonder if the candidate really doesn't believe that he can (or should) be elected on his own merit.

I think what makes is complicated is the perception of media bias on both sides. When people come to feel that they can't expect to be treated fairly by the press and feel the public is already being manipulated, I suspect it makes it easier to want to manipulate them yourself for your own ends.

I keep waiting to see what the influence of the internet ends up being. What it seems to be to me now is that it motivates and "informs" the already committed (and maybe even extremist) but may not have that much influence on a big section of voters who now simply choose to watch TV channels which already reflect their views.

ETA: This was interesting: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._election_2008

[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.

[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.

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.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

IMVHO/POV, having seen 30-40 debates already, I just do not see anyone in the professional mass media letting either one of the candidates stay to their "preferred" statements.

And in an open, honest, above board campaign, it would be rather difficult to stay there. Remember, we have only seen intra-conflicts, not the inter-conflicts between the two parties and their candidates.

So, perhaps we all will find out:
Just where on the Left one is.
Just where on the Right the other is.

Just what both their pasts are and just who they are affiliated with and close too.

If you are going to point out one for what ever matter or issue, you should remember that the same goes for the other.

And I still can not see any reason to fling mud.

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, Jon, but it seems like McCain has been through that wringer a time or two before, and while I suppose his past could surprise younger voters, I don't think there's really much there that's unexplored. And he's got a pretty long record in office which is out there in the open.

On the other hand, what do we really know about Obama or what he's likely to really do?

And I think the mainstream media really likes him and aren't going to do too much digging or slinging, and yet we could probably have a countdown to the story about the Keating Five in the NYT, kind of a follow-up on McCain's "lack of ethics" demonstrated with the non-story about his affair they ran during the primary.

[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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by jon1856

IMVHO/POV, having seen 30-40 debates already, I just do not see anyone in the professional mass media letting either one of the candidates stay to their "preferred" statements.

And in an open, honest, above board campaign, it would be rather difficult to stay there. Remember, we have only seen intra-conflicts, not the inter-conflicts between the two parties and their candidates.

So, perhaps we all will find out:
Just where on the Left one is.
Just where on the Right the other is.

Just what both their pasts are and just who they are affiliated with and close too.

If you are going to point out one for what ever matter or issue, you should remember that the same goes for the other.

And I still can not see any reason to fling mud.

Depends on what you define as flinging mud. Some in the MSM and on the left are going to say McCain is engaging in racist mudslinging anytime he mentions Barack's associations. I think such things are legitimate subjects for discussion.

[PhiGam]

Hillary only wanted 39% on the upper class, Obama will probably want somewhere in the 40s.
I was just thinking... if Obama picks Gore then hes unbeatable.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I always forget to follow the threads I've already posted in.
If the liberals continue to overrun our country, we'll be paying takes like Sweden at about 70% so we can all share in the payments for the sexually irresponsible individual. In short, the government will have to pay.
If we had it my way, all abortions would be outlawed unless the pregnancy posed imminent danger to the mother, eliminating some of those expenses.


Back to the main topic: I'll be content with a dirty election as long as it keeps Obama out of the white house.

And if "dirty election"/"dirty politics" for what ever the reason or cause keeps John out (Obama wins) , just how would you feel?
As I posted before, when one says something about one side, it also holds true for the other.

[DaemonSeid]

pay attention to the caption...not the clip.....


I am cracking up over here!

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...baby_mama.html

[DSTCHAOS]

Okay.

She referred to Barack as "my baby daddy" a couple of years ago at a rally. I wasn't thrilled over the reference but at least it was her doing it.

ETA: http://sandrarose.com/2008/06/12/mic...r-babys-daddy/

[nate2512]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/conte...thesmearshome/