what an ASS.
I was worried at the very beginning when McCain was pretending to be your jovial grandpa and Barack seemed a bit tense, but McCain's condescension has been off the charts for the last hour.
Hats off to Barack Obama for having the patience and cool not to throttle him.
Saw a tip on DU that John "W" McCain's wikipedia page is glowingly positive, while Barack Obama's is neutral-to-negative.
It was on this site that I first read about using SEO in politics. Hope we can keep wikipedia fair and accurate and make sure John McCain's google results are equally fair and accurate.
If we argue this GOP talking point on the merits, we are missing the point.
I've seen some that strike me as annoyingly sexist and unhelpful, some that to me are of questionable taste but funny ("Caribou Barbie" on Stephanie Miller), and some that I think are purely empirical. No doubt each of you would rate them differently.
We could talk about that forever and never agree, and that's what the Republicans and their media trolls hope we'll do. It's a classic GOP tar baby, intended to entrap us debate-loving Democrats. Best way to deal with it is leave it alone.
The point is not whether some critiques of Palin are sexist or not. The point is are we going to let John McCain change the subject or not.
If the media try to bait Democrats and our allies with questions about sexism, mythical PUMAs, comparisons to Senator Clinton, blah blah blah, we can either give them more ammo by getting engaged in that debate, or give a flawlessly bland answer and let that distraction sink like a stone the way it should.
The issue is McCain and his impulsivity, poor judgment, secrecy around his health records, dishonesty, cluelessness about the lives of ordinary working Americans, eagerness for war, history of corruption, belligerence and hostility, extreme right-wing views (esp. on issues important to women), etc. etc. etc.
They're desperately trying to change the subject, because if we pay attention to any of the above (or their pathetic convention--LOL), they are sunk. Let them sink.
Smells like Karl Rove's dirty tricks, planting nasty fliers in the opposing campaign's garbage, planting fake memos to distract us from the true content, etc.
Big-money media love the back & forth controversy, so once it's out there, it gets big pretty quickly.
What's the most effective way not to get ratf&^$ed?
- Tight discipline on the message, so that there are no "loose cannons" who can in any way be linked to the campaign.
Ironically, part of Obama's success in the primaries was due to the under-the-radar attacks on Clinton: he could keep the high road for all official public statements while the more vicious dirty laundry on his opponent would get circulated anyway.
As much as I got tired of everyone on our own side believing that Obama wasn't doing any negative campaigning, that strategy made perfect sense against Clinton.
This latest GOP dirty trick is attacking that strength, Obama's superiority in decentralized "2.0"-style campaigning.
Fortunately, Obama is also strong on message discipline, so these nonsensical attempts to link him and his campaign to "nasty Internet rumors" are not working, because nobody believes them.
However, everyone who enjoyed the free-fire on Clinton may want to dial it back on Palin or the GOP will make a federal case out of it. Don't give them ammo.
It's all about McCain's dangerous temperament, his impaired judgment, his imminent (?) senility, his impulsivity, etc. etc. etc. The less we say about his running mate, the better--she'll sink like a stone unless we let them change the subject to the meanies attacking her on the shady back tubes of the Internet.
and we have seen the insulting pandering choice McCain made.
The way to handle this is to make a bland statement (done!) and then go back to putting the spotlight on McCain's unstable temperament, poor judgment, lack of character, and utter indifference to the suffering of regular working citizens.
"Tough talk and bad strategy"--that about sums it up.