Election thread

[ikol]

They made McSame into an ad?

[ikol]

So should we always just vote for the poorest candidate or does that only apply when he or she is a Democrat?

[Sir Stewart]

Not a bad ad, but it's nothing compared to the

.

[Synthesizer Patel]

i'm quite a big hater of the idea that saying how shit someone else is must therefore mean that you'd do a better job by contrast. it only leads to disappointment. so i'd say that was a bad ad.

[Winston Legthigh]

i'm quite a big hater of the idea that saying how shit someone else is must therefore mean that you'd do a better job by contrast. it only leads to disappointment. so i'd say that was a bad ad.

But it's not saying that. It's saying "Your approval rating of Bush has likely diminished over time. McCain's approval of Bush has increased. Don't you think you should consider that fact when you vote?"

[LouieB]

Michelle-beautiful, strong, intelligent, highly educated working mother, and devoted wife.Great speech! Obabma in my town in the am!!!!So will Cindy speak @ the RNC? That ought to be good .

Terrific speech. Cindy won't speak I am sure.

 

Voting for the poorest candidate is of course ridiculous, but not voting for John McCain is easy regardless of how much he is worth. Sadly he is worth-less, despite his "get out of jail" free card.

 

Seeing Teddy for what is probably the last time, was sad indeed. Perhaps he will return to the Senate in January as promised, but despite looking reasonably good, I would think that is a long shot.

 

LouieB

[Synthesizer Patel]

But it's not saying that. It's saying "Your approval rating of Bush has likely diminished over time. McCain's approval of Bush has increased.

 

so this increase in mccain's approval rating of bush compared to the american people is not supposed to be showing mccain in a negative light? ie. how shit he is / will be. what does this say about the party that made the ad? apart from that they have an unhealthy fascination with what the other party is doing / has done, as opposed to what they're going to do / would like to do if they were in power. what happened to this whole campaign of 'change', or whatever it was? i guess a little change is good, but too much is scary and not worth the risk.

 

Don't you think you should consider that fact when you vote?"

 

no. plus, i'm english.

[Beltmann]

So should we always just vote for the poorest candidate or does that only apply when he or she is a Democrat?

ikol, you already know that isn't the argument. The point concerns only the hypocrisy of certain Republicans who are eager to paint the Obamas as elitist (despite their humble beginnings), but equally eager to overlook how the McCains are much more likely to fit the definition.

 

As for me, I don't care how many houses John McCain has, nor how much money his wife is worth. Good for them, I say.

[Tweedling]

Is Bill Ayers going to speak at the DNC?

[Good Old Neon]

Given that most of these folks are throwing stones from gilded houses, I think it would make sense to retire the smear

[cryptique]

i'm quite a big hater of the idea that saying how shit someone else is must therefore mean that you'd do a better job by contrast. it only leads to disappointment. so i'd say that was a bad ad.

I agree with you in principle, but sadly, that's the way elections are run over here. This ad barely even begins to balance the negative ads that McCain has run against Obama.

 

Obama wanted to run a positive campaign, but when you're being relentlessly attacked by the other campaign the way he has, you eventually have to respond in kind or you're going to get your ass handed to you at the ballot box.

[bobbob1313]

You need to get laid or something.

 

Obama's love is all I'll ever need.

 

And come on, Cryptique, Obama has run an overwhelmingly negative campaign, and it has nothing to do with McCain starting it.

 

I'll never understand why people actually bought that Obama is "different". Dude's a fucking awesome salesman.

[bobbob1313]

Sadly he is worth-less, despite his "get out of jail" free card.

 

What does this mean?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

What does this mean?

Could be referring to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/...ARqzYEAU1nfXW5g

 

When the Obama crowd was miffed to learn that McCain was in a motorcade rather than in a

[cryptique]

And come on, Cryptique, Obama has run an overwhelmingly negative campaign, and it has nothing to do with McCain starting it.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. I guess I watch more TV than you do.

[bobbob1313]

I still don't really get what he's trying to say. Is he saying that his 5 years in POW weren't that bad, or that he can just point to that on any issue or something?

[Central Scrutinizer]

Obama's love is all I'll ever need.

 

And come on, Cryptique, Obama has run an overwhelmingly negative campaign, and it has nothing to do with McCain starting it.

 

I'll never understand why people actually bought that Obama is "different". Dude's a fucking awesome salesman.

I agree, but I'd still have a beer with the guy, if he drinks beer. I'm guessing he's not the 40-ouncer type.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

or that he can just point to that on any issue or something?

Well that's generally what a "get out of jail free card" would refer to in an election, I would think.

[Good Old Neon]

I think

[Synthesizer Patel]

I agree with you in principle, but sadly, that's the way elections are run over here. This ad barely even begins to balance the negative ads that McCain has run against Obama.

 

Obama wanted to run a positive campaign, but when you're being relentlessly attacked by the other campaign the way he has, you eventually have to respond in kind or you're going to get your ass handed to you at the ballot box.

 

oh, it happens just the same in england. but, i think we tend to have a bit more fun with it at times - i kind of think that some of your politians actually believe the spin. it's still bullshit, whatever way you look at it.

 

your point about obama losing if he didn't play the game is kind of one of my biggest problems with modern politics anyway. it used to be that people and parties had principles and they were voted in based on those principles, so if the people wanted a conservative government, that's what they'd vote for - or if they wanted a labour government, then they'd vote labour. and you knew what you were getting.

 

now politics is a career. now the parties base their manifestos on what they think will get them into power, not on principles and beliefs - it's merely the pursuit of power.

 

you can't run a campaign about wanting to change politics and whatever other guff he thinks will win him the vote, and inspire the nation, when he hasn't got the balls to set his own house in order and dissown the negative scare mongering, even if it does mean he'll run the risk of losing. that's the sort of gamble and ambition he appeared to be trying to inspire from the people during the leadership race - and this sort of thing seems to renege somewhat on that spirit of optimism.

 

now i'm going to go and blow up parliament.

[cryptique]

I don't disagree with you, really. But I also will say, quite adamantly, that Obama cannot win this election without hitting back at McCain. It's a disgusting state of affairs, but I'd be more upset with him if he just laid down and took it and lost the election in the process.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I don't disagree with you, really. But I also will say, quite adamantly, that Obama cannot win this election without hitting back at McCain. It's a disgusting state of affairs, but I'd be more upset with him if he just laid down and took it and lost the election in the process.

 

yeah, but that's the fundamental issue with 'change'. obviously it's easier to continue on the same path, but doing so isn't going to bring about change. if you have to win that much that you must corrupt yourself in the process it's a bit of a shallow victory - it's not you changing the system, it's the system changing you. and so, nothing changes. you do know that once he's in power you'll have at least his first term blaming the bush administration for any negative issues that arise within that time frame? - his advisors will tell him it's alright to do that, cos it's the norm, and people will believe for a certain number of years - he's not bucking the system in this electoral campaign, so i don't see any signs things will change if and when he's made president. i know my opinion is an idealised view of what i think would mean REAL CHANGE, it's never going to happen, it's perhaps more disappointing just how uninspired and staid the negative spin campaigns actually are - there must be someone in either camp that can come up with something which, whilst putting down the opposition, actually has something to say of some merit or other. at least to make it interesting for us watchers.

[Party @ the Moontower]

So should we always just vote for the poorest candidate or does that only apply when he or she is a Democrat?

 

 

I was replying to this comment above mine. If you had read that you would not have made such a silly statement concerning my words.

 

"The irony of this is all the trouble the Obamas are having to take to keep him from being painted as an 'elitist' when both he and his wife came from relatively humble beginnings. Contrast that with a guy who was the son, and grandson, of Navy Admirals ( a pretty well-connected gig I would think) and who ended up marrying a woman who is the multi-millionaire heiress of a beer baron. "

[cryptique]

if you have to win that much that you must corrupt yourself in the process it's a bit of a shallow victory - it's not you changing the system, it's the system changing you. and so, nothing changes.

But if you lose, nothing changes.

 

Better to win by fighting fire with fire than to lose and watch the fire consume everything.

[Party @ the Moontower]

The ad...is the work of a freelancer, Obama did not endorse it. It's not even on tv, it's on Utube.It's in no way negative and is 100% truth. Where's the smear here?? During an election you must point out the lies being fed to your would be voters, and the inconsistencies of your opponent. But again, this is not Obama's ad.

 

That is not exactly swinging dung. I'd have to say Obama has shown himself to be above all that during the Hillary moments, and now he is staying focused and far behind McCain in the bashing game. It's hard to find dirt on the man so they keep on with stuff already laid to rest, like the Muslim rumor and such.

 

Still a good vid!A vote for McCain is a vote for continuing Bush's fine work.