The amount of posts in here lately that simply highlight some verbal gaffe of one candidate or the other is staggering to me. Does the occasional misstep in a speech really effect people's opinions that much?

 

Its kind of laughable to me, people will gleefully point out some stupid little misstatement of the candidate they dislike, then get all defensive when their own candidate does the same thing. No candidate, in the current age of modern media, will be able to go the campaign without a few mistakes like this. Its just not possible. So why make an issue of it?

 

The other side of this argument, I suppose, is that if the candidate is doing it often, then it starts to make you wonder if he or she will look bad as the leader of our nation. And if it gets really bad, like Dubya bad, then I can see that. But I don't see either of these candidates as being nearly that bad. Do you?

they mean very little to me. I have a job where I speak a lot and it happens to me, and the canditates speak a ton more than I do.

Its just another excuse to not talk about important things...

Its just another excuse to not talk about important things...

^^^^^

 

It's funny to laugh at the candidates when they mess up but it's even funnier to watch the die-hard supporters jump all over the other candidate and defend theirs when they do the same thing.

 

The only time it's really an issue to me is in a case like Hillary, where she flat-out fabricated a story and repeated it several times. But the miscues, like "57 states" are nothing and deserve no attention outside of a chuckle.

It depends on the gaffe. I'll laugh at "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you, 8 second pause, can't get fooled again" and ones of that order. But gaffes can hurt. The stock market took a brief dive early in Bush's term when he spoke about "Currency devaluation" when he meant to say deflation. Not having a clear understanding of the Sunni/Shi'ite split and constantly fouling that up leads to things like declaring that the Iranians are supporting the Sunni insurgents and leads to false strategies. And then there's the "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" level...

It depends on the gaffe. I'll laugh at "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you, 8 second pause, can't get fooled again" and ones of that order. But gaffes can hurt. The stock market took a brief dive early in Bush's term when he spoke about "Currency devaluation" when he meant to say deflation. Not having a clear understanding of the Sunni/Shi'ite split and constantly fouling that up leads to things like declaring that the Iranians are supporting the Sunni insurgents and leads to false strategies. And then there's the "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" level...

The Iraq uranium lies, and the repeated Sunni/Shia misunderstandings, are not gaffes in my view. One was a fabrication, the other is a lack of knowledge. That's not the stuff I am referring to here.

 

The Iraq uranium lies, and the repeated Sunni/Shia misunderstandings, are not gaffes in my view. One was a fabrication, the other is a lack of knowledge. That's not the stuff I am referring to here.

 

And that distinction is where I have a hard time answering this poll. So much of what McCain says is not verbal gaffe – it’s just flat out wrong.

 

Repeated unsubstantiated assertions that Iran is arming al-Qaeda (Shiaa? Sunni? What’s the difference?) are not verbal gaffes.

 

Just a couple of weeks ago McCain berated Joe Klein when Klein suggested that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate political authority in Iran and not Ahmadinejad. Of course, Klein was right and McCain was wrong. Not a gaffe, he had his facts wrong.

 

Back in April I think, McCain had his facts wrong on whether it was Maliki or Sadr making the first call for a basra ceasefire. Before that he made repeated incorrect claims that Iranian operatives were training al-Qaeda fighters in Iran. When corrected, he tried to pass it off as a verbal gaffe, but that doesn’t hold water when the false claims are repeated multiple times.

 

Steve Benen summed it up nicely a while back; “Reporters have already made up their minds — McCain knows his stuff, even when he doesn’t, and all reporting on the senator’s campaign will be refracted through that agreed upon prism.”

I put that its completely irrelevant. I couldnt care less about things like that and I think its a waste of time to use them as argument points. Im much more concerned with the policies the candidates stand for and how they apply to their track record.

What it boils down to is this:

 

Hard core McCain supporters will read a lot into any gaffes Obama makes.

 

Hard core Obama supporters will read a lot into any gaffes McCain makes.

 

The most ardent will take these mistakes as a fact that the candidate opposite theirs is completely incompetent and should not be president. I do think that the type of voter who is still undecided or could possibly shift from one side to the other will not think a simple mistake is of grave concern.

Its just another excuse to not talk about important things...

 

Exactly. However, I think it's somewhat important, because if there are a lot of mistakes and whatnot, to me it shows a lack of preparation. However, if it's just a few, it's not a big deal.

Anyone want to fess up to voting for "they are both worse than Bush"? I am surprised someone voted that way.

 

Anyone want to fess up to voting for "they are both worse than Bush"? I am surprised someone voted that way.

Bush never threatened my beer

Anyone want to fess up to voting for "they are both worse than Bush"? I am surprised someone voted that way.

It's a little known fact that GWB is a member of this site.

It's a little known fact that GWB is a member of this site.