check out the latest McCain ad... pretty sad. Didn't know that Obama was just like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.

 

 

In fact I wonder if Spears or Hilton can sue to remove their likeness from an ad? How would that be any different than Coke using a picture of Hilton? (or Hilton doing coke... )

I am so sick of this "Bear DNA line he trots out." It's the only way they can properly keep population numbers in the Pac NW.

So McCain is running negative ads. Tell me how that makes him a bad choice to be President? To me that is all about style and not substance. How does pointing to his ads and screaming negative! negative! translate to why I should vote for Obama?

I am so sick of this "Bear DNA line he trots out." It's the only way they can properly keep population numbers in the Pac NW.

McCain likes to make it sound like every "pork" project would no longer exist under his watch. It's just not true. his argument is that it should be it's own bill, not an earmark. He tends to gloss over that part.

McCain likes to make it sound like every "pork" project would no longer exist under his watch. It's just not true. his argument is that it should be it's own bill, not an earmark. He tends to gloss over that part.

And what is Obama's plan reagrding pork barrel projects?

So McCain is running negative ads. Tell me how that makes him a bad choice to be President?

I don't know why he should be president. He's too busy complaining about his opponent to tell me why I should vote for him.

McCain Camp Admits Their Ad Was False

It shouldn't be surprising McCain's ads are disgusting and often lacking in facts:

 

Flash Back to 2006-

McCain Hires Strategist Behind Harold Ford "Bimbo" Ad As Campaign Manager

 

John McCain has signed up GOP operative Terry Nelson as his campaign manager -- yep, that would be the same Terry Nelson who produced the infamous, racially-charged "bimbo" ad attacking Dem Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr. ABC News reports that McCain's exploratory committee will announce the hiring of Nelson, a former top operative for Bush-Cheney '04, as "national campaign manager" later today.

 

What a disgusting ad:

 

He later resigned after tanking McCain's campaign:

On July 10, 2007, Nelson resigned as national campaign manager for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. The sudden departure of both Nelson and longtime McCain adviser John Weaver came after months of increasing campaign problems. McCain, after first insisting that neither man had been fired, called their departure "a consensus decision."

Since we heard about that $300 haircut so often, I'm left wondering...if John Edwards were caught wearing $520 Italian shoes, how often would we have heard about it?

And Obama is the elitist?

 

*scratches head*

I don't know why he should be president. He's too busy complaining about his opponent to tell me why I should vote for him.

 

Really? I was just looking at his web site and there was plenty of information there. Unless your mind is already made up.

Really? I was just looking at his web site and there was plenty of information there. Unless your mind is already made up.

You and I know that but the average American who doesn't pay much attention as we do will look at things like commercials and newspaper headlines. Most people don't spend several hours per week reading political blogs and what not.

You and I know that but the average American who doesn't pay much attention as we do will look at things like commercials and newspaper headlines. Most people don't spend several hours per week reading political blogs and what not.

Which is why negative ads work so great. Fear is a far bigger motivator then hope.

You and I know that but the average American who doesn't pay much attention as we do will look at things like commercials and newspaper headlines. Most people don't spend several hours per week reading political blogs and what not.

I have no life. lol

Which is why negative ads work so great. Fear is a far bigger motivator then hope.

Based on the record number of people who voted in the Dem primary I beg to differ.

Based on the record number of people who voted in the Dem primary I beg to differ.

 

Based on the tighest primary race in my lifetime fueling voting late into the primary season, I stand by my statement. Negative ads would have been extint a few decades ago of they didn't work.

Based on the tighest primary race in my lifetime fueling voting late into the primary season, I stand by my statement. Negative ads would have been extint a few decades ago of they didn't work.

Well if the McCain camp thinks they're a good idea in this election cycle then his campaign doesn't have a good pulse on the people right now.

I dunno, the way McCain has run his campaign since he won the primaries, I can't even remember why I used to like him anymore. Combine that with the fact that he's changed his position on just about every important issue except the war and this isn't the 2000 version of McCain.

Cindy McCain on the Today Show, May 8, 2008:

"What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.”

the thing is negative advertisements for the most part are more educational, except for the one's that just attack character or ads like willie horton that are very loose, but that's where the media is supposed to come in, right? (oh, right, all they do now is show the ad and ask how it will be perceived by the audience and if the ad was good strategy, I forgot)

 

Sometimes I think a negative ad is healthier for our democracy than "Hey, this is me with my family making cookies, see, I'm just like you, except rich people give me money all the time to push their policies. Vote for me!"

Cindy McCain on the Today Show, May 8, 2008:

"What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.”

That depends on your definition of "negative." McCain never said he wasn't going to go after Obama on policies and whatnot, and IMO he should. He's been pushing that envelope pretty hard though.

That depends on your definition of "negative."

I define negative as spending a majority of your time pointing out how the other person is a bad guy then spend the last 5-6 seconds to say how great you are and I prove this message. The last 6 McCain ads / videos have been 100% negative.

 

McCain never said he wasn't going to go after Obama on policies and whatnot

 

I should also add I have NO issues with "contrast" adds. He says this, but I say this. I dont like them, but I get that. That's ok. You can argue the RNC / Obama "who went negative first" post I made a while back was really just 2 "contrast" ads.

Edited July 30, 200817 yr by Athomeboy_2000

I define negative as spending a majority of your time pointing out how the other person is a bad guy then spend the last 5-6 seconds to say how great you are and I prove this message. The last 6 McCain ads / videos have been 100% negative.

If the negativity is factually accurate (hi there Hillary Clinton) and isn't an ad hominem character attack (which McCain is starting to descend into lately) I see nothing wrong with it.

Edited July 30, 200817 yr by lostfan

Cindy McCain on the Today Show, May 8, 2008:

"What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all."

And how should this make me want to vote for Obama? What in your bolded message should make me want to vote for Obama? Or is this an example of the negative campaign strategies you oppose?

 

The most negative stuff I have seen this campaign are your posts

I define negative as spending a majority of your time pointing out how the other person is a bad guy

 

have you looked at your last 3,000 posts

have you looked at your last 3,000 posts

never said fans cant go crazy. I dont want to see the politician do it.

I thought this was kind of interesting. A little overstated though:

 

The New York Times has posted Obama’s syllabi from his teaching years at the University of Chicago, and, like most Obama material from the 1990s, there’s a real continuity between even the tone of his course descriptions and his political style.

 

Here’s how he described the final paper for a 1994 seminar on racism and law:

I'll be loo

k

ing for: a) a focu

s

ed, tightly-crafted argument, and analytic rigor in wor

k

ing through the legal or policy problem

s

rai

s

ed by your topic; 2) a thorough examination of the diver

s

ity of opinion that exi

s

t

s

on the i

s

s

ue or theme; 3) a willingne

s

s

, after having loo

k

ed at the variou

s

facet

s

of the topic, to ta

k

e a

s

tand and offer concrete propo

s

al

s

or approache

s

to the problem.

The pledge to both take in a wide range of opinion and take a stand – along with the fluid wordiness – is commonplace in most university classes, but it also echoes the rationale for Obama’s candidacy: that he took a stand on issues the war and that he’s going to be a post-partisan bridgemaker.