nimh
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 12:33 pm
Well, on a doubting note, anyone remember John Kerry's "rope-a-dope strategy"?

In the early summer of 2004, the Republican swiftboaters were already attacking him, and were keeping it up, and the usual anonymous sources from within the Kerry camp were leaking to befriended media that its lack of assertive response was actually part of a strategy: the rope-a-dope strategy.

The arguments did sound halfway credible too:
- this early in the campaign, regular and undecided people werent paying attention yet anyway;
- the attackers were obviously partisan conservatives from obscure circles, and responding would just lend them credence;
- responding would just keep the story in the news longer;
- considering Kerry's well-known and much-honored Vietnam service, the broader public would never buy into the "he wasnt really a hero in fact he was a traitor even already in Vietnam" storyline anyway
- in fact, they would be turned off by it (so hey, let them finish off themselves);
- since Joe Sixpack wasnt yet paying attention anyway, it was a waste of precious campaign funding to go on air now, and only smart of Kerry to keep focusing on fundraising, fundraising, fundraising, and amass a treasure chest to really hit back hard with when the race caught fire;
- by which time the opponents would have already fired off everything they had on this, and would be left with empty hands.

In short, the notion was, Kerry's apparent laxity in responding to the Swift smears was not just incompetence or misguided reticence - it was actually smart to lean in the ropes and let the blows fall now, early in the season, and spare one's strength for the final lap.

Well, we all know what happened with that. By the time Kerry went after the Swift allegations ferociously after all, it was way too late.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 12:40 pm
sozobe wrote:
(I mean really, how can you "leak" information contained in a 12-year-old best-seller, with 800,000 copies in print?)

One can't, of course.

But with 99% of the US population not having read the book (the Voting-Eligible Population of 2006 was almost 207 million), one can easily make it sound like a scoop, a sensational piece of information.

I bet 9 out of 10 prospective voters dont know about Obama's past coke use yet. It'll come up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 12:41 pm
Yeah, Kerry handled that terribly.

I tend to agree with Thomas here that it's already been addressed about as thoroughly as possible, in the book. Obama has also commented on it further as part of the "if you DO decide to become president..." thing, facing it pretty much head on. (Can find some quotes.)

I wouldn't mind if with this new round of visibility he addresses it head-on yet again, but I agree that it's less likely to have legs because there is less to debate. Obama tried drugs, yep. He's said so himself.

I guess if there is some sort of Swiftboatvets equivalent, a guy who says "well Obama claims he never tried cocaine again but in the summer of 1990..." Ugh, sure hope not.

Plus I can see the cigarette thing being dragged into this -- see, he's an addictive personality, he can't give up cigarettes.

Bleh.

This is almost but not quite appropos of nothing -- I was thinking about how the current system makes it so hard for your basic good, intelligent, normal person to succeed in politics, and trying to figure out how to get around that. Was starting to come up with some peer nomination process. Like instead of someone saying, "I want to be a politician," some peer saying, "I totally think this guy should be a politician," and that starting the process. But there would have to be some sort of out, the ability for the nominated person to say "no way," and the best ones probably would.

Double bleh.

Will be interested in seeing how Obama handles himself.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 03:51 pm
nimh wrote:
In short, the notion was, Kerry's apparent laxity in responding to the Swift smears was not just incompetence or misguided reticence - it was actually smart to lean in the ropes and let the blows fall now, early in the season, and spare one's strength for the final lap.

Well, we all know what happened with that. By the time Kerry went after the Swift allegations ferociously after all, it was way too late.

Yes, but the difference is that Kerry continued to campaign on his war hero credentials while the swift boaters attacked exactly these credentials. As he found out too late, he couldn't do this without defending himself. Obama isn't trying to advertize any drug-consumtion credentials. He doesn't say his taking drugs makes him worthier than an opponent who hasn't. So he needn't defend this part of his record against Sean Hannity or anybody else. He can simply respond to the attacks, "yes, I used to take some drugs. You heard that from me years before you heard it from Fox. If it's a deal breaker for you, don't vote for me. I understand." Obama is in a much better position to rope-a-dope than Kerry was.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:22 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
hypersmarty wrote:
I personally don't think you're smart enough to know who the phuck to hate, so you just hate phucking everybody.


Thanks but you don't have to be hyper to know snood hates everyone.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 08:46 am
cjhsa wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
hypersmarty wrote:
I personally don't think you're smart enough to know who the phuck to hate, so you just hate phucking everybody.


Thanks but you don't have to be hyper to know snood hates everyone.


The Rambo-lite arse who sees threats in every latino worker, agonizes about having to drive through minority neighborhoods, and fears the UN is coming to take his manhood (guns) away...

The whiney blowhard beeyotch who shoots small animals for fun and has regular p*ssing matches with a half dozen posters...

This is the genius who scratches his crotch, thinking, and comes up with the brilliant judgement that it is snood who hates everyone.

...and he uses the Obama 08 thread - which, by the way Sozobe has really turned out to be one of the most interesting and successful (as far as eliciting stimulating conversation) for me.

You are such a loser, cjhsa.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:40 am
Well that sure wasnt a bit of stimulating conversation from either of you.. (and no i dont care who started it, he said adjusting his schoolmaster's glasses)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 11:19 am
nimh wrote:
Well that sure wasnt a bit of stimulating conversation from either of you.. (and no i dont care who started it, he said adjusting his schoolmaster's glasses)
Ya think? Laughing
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 04:19 pm
Wilso wrote:
The further to the right they move, the more ugly and hate filled they become, to the point where they hate everything.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 04:26 pm
Invoking Wilso, the voice of undiluted neutrality himself, eh? Laughing
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 04:32 pm
Blessed are the peacemakers...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 09:52 pm
There was an article in the New York Times about Hillary Clinton's ever more unambiguous exploration of a presidential bid. I was going to post it here, but as I was commenting it, it turned more into a rant - I mean, eh, critical reflection - about press practices, so instead I've posted it

Here on my thread, "The trouble with your press"

In any case, Hillary is on the way, and this is a topical bit:

Quote:
Senator Clinton told one New Hampshire Democrat that if all things were equal, she would prefer to delay the formal start of her campaign until later this year and focus instead on notching accomplishments as a prominent member of the new Democratic majority in the Senate. At several meetings, Mrs. Clinton has wondered, with obvious exasperation, why her husband was able to delay making his presidential announcement in 1991 until October, while she is under increasing pressure to make hers earlier in the year, participants said.

"I recommended that she didn't need to jump in early, that I would like to see some progress in the Senate, and she said she felt the same way," said the Democrat, William Shaheen [..].

Some of her aides said that while she is likely to announce within the next few weeks that she is creating a presidential exploratory committee, a step that would allow her to start raising money, a formal announcement might take longer.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:31 pm
Concerning Obama and drugs, Michael Medved said:

If the American people managed to elect (twice) a stonewalling, wealthy frat boy from a spectacularly privileged family despite his reported involvement with illegal substances, they will readily forgive (and even embrace) a mixed-race kid from a troubled background whose father abandoned him in his infancy and who wrote candidly, long before his presidential campaign, of his regrettable participation in the drug culture.


To that I say - hope you're right, buddy.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/story?id=2773754&page=1
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:33 pm
Quote:
At several meetings, Mrs. Clinton has wondered, with obvious exasperation, why her husband was able to delay making his presidential announcement in 1991 until October, while she is under increasing pressure to make hers earlier in the year, participants said.


Because the opposition has been building up the anti-Hilary campaign for the last 6 years in anticipation of her announcement, and it would be a sad thing to see all that work and money go to waste. They want as much air time as possible so they get a big bang for their bucks.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:50 pm
snood wrote:
Concerning Obama and drugs, Michael Medved said:

If the American people managed to elect (twice) a stonewalling, wealthy frat boy from a spectacularly privileged family despite his reported involvement with illegal substances, they will readily forgive (and even embrace) a mixed-race kid from a troubled background whose father abandoned him in his infancy and who wrote candidly, long before his presidential campaign, of his regrettable participation in the drug culture.


To that I say - hope you're right, buddy.

Yeah, count me sceptic.

Negative political campaigning is all about playing on fears, conscious or subconcsious. Evoking the visceral, the emotional trigger that will keep someone from voting for the other guy when he's in the voting booth.

Now what are voters more fearful of - spoiled elite white frat boys who use coke; or troubled young, black drug-users? Which spectre looms larger?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 6 Jan, 2007 10:57 pm
Depends on your perspective, I guess. I personally am more nervous about coked-out fratboys than strung out black teens, but I know what you mean.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jan, 2007 12:45 am
snood wrote:
Finn -
I've read Obama's books, and I've read his stances on issues, and I think that if I'm being "swayed", its by a hell of a lot more than the "candy of persona". A lot of people don't just like Obama because he looks and talks pretty. You are cautioning people not to be fooled by charisma, but I'd venture that you haven't and won't try to look any deeper into the man, and so insist that we can only perceive his substance after we have blindly installed him in office.


Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to put quotation marks around the word swayed? Considering that I didn't use the word in the context of anyone (least of all you) being influenced by Obama's charms, it seems an odd choice of punctuation.

In any case...

You're right, I haven't read his autobiography (Is it plural now? Strange for so young and essentially inconsequential a figure), but I tend to be skeptical about the candor of politicians' autobiographies. I have read quite a few articles about him (including interviews) and he seems like an intelligent and sensible person. Unfortunately, he is also very much a Liberal.

Given that you have announced your racial bias for his candidacy, your vehemency about his substance comes up a bit short, but if you find him to be clearly substantial...good for you. I would add "Vote for him," but I know you will if given the chance.

This is what it comes down to: Arguably self-serving autobiographies and charm.

I suppose though that a fan such as yourself has studied his performance as an Illinois state legislator and therein have found the seeds of greatness.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jan, 2007 01:16 am
And I will give your appraisal of Obama and my support of him the same regard I give all your offerings...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jan, 2007 10:23 am
Someone asked about Obama and gay marriage. I've been working 11-12 hour days, and haven't had much motivation to look, until now...

From The Audacity of Hope, pg 222:

I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a womanas the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens in a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are the same sex - nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the Mount.

pg 223:

...I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilictions and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history. I don't believe such doubts make me a bad Christian. I believe they make me human, limited in my understandings of God's purpose and therefore prone to sin. When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations - whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion.



The above passages illustrate some of what I like about the man. He isn't rigid, but he is strong in the convictions he has taken to heart. That he doesn't claim to have the 'be all and end al' answers on such deeply serious issues as gay marriage or abortion rights doesn't condemn him in my eyes. I'd rather someone took a principled stand and was open about all of the reasoning behind that stand - including the doubts.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 7 Jan, 2007 05:06 pm
bump
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 140
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 02:02:05