• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those numbers were taken at the peak of the convention bump. I'll take it, and Obama's smart for not pulling out of Missouri just yet. Any state that he can close to two points or so by election day is going to be a nailbiter when the votes actually start coming in-the key is having enough of those states on the table that one or two of them topple over to his column for the victory, while still the Iowa/New Mexico/Colorado + Kerry path intact.
 

Parl

Member
Question: Are neutral news articles which attempt to cover all notable points, like this one (from BBC News - as mainstream as you can get), commonplace in US mainstream media?

BBC News said:
Obama rejects 'lipstick' charge

The US Democratic presidential candidate has denied claims of sexism after likening his rival's promise of change to putting "lipstick on a pig".

Barack Obama said Republican John McCain's outrage was "phoney", a diversion from debating real issues.

The controversy began on Tuesday after Mr Obama said his rival was advocating change while pursuing the politics of the current Bush administration.

Mr McCain's campaign accused him of smearing running mate Sarah Palin.

Mrs Palin joked last week that lipstick was all that separated a "hockey mom" and a pitbull.

'Made-up' controversy

Mr Obama made the remark during a rally in Virginia where he accused the McCain campaign of trying suddenly to adopt the promise of change - a platform he himself has been running on for months.

Drawing a link between the Republican senator for Arizona and President George W Bush, he suggested change would be impossible for Mr McCain to achieve.

"You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough."


Mrs Palin, a self-described "hockey mom", made her joke about lipstick during a speech at the Republican National Convention last Wednesday.

Soon after Mr Obama's comments, McCain aides produced an election campaign ad referring to "sexism in American life", and accusing the Illinois senator of "smearing" Mrs Palin, governor of Alaska.

And there was speculation that Mr Obama might apologise, but he took a more aggressive line, says the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Washington.

He dismissed the "made-up controversy" on Wednesday - defending his remark as an "innocent expression".

Mr Obama said his comments had been taken out of context.

"The McCain campaign would much rather have the story about phoney and foolish diversions than about the future," the Illinois senator said.

Republicans may well try to keep the controversy going, although one difficulty for them is that John McCain has himself used the offending phrase, our Washington correspondent says.

Mr McCain had used the same analogy to criticise a health care plan presented by former Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton last year.

The row erupted as a new poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News suggested that Mr Obama and Mr McCain were in a statistical dead heat. Mr Obama held a lead of several points earlier this summer.

Another poll by CNN and the Opinion Research Foundation also put the rival candidates in a statistical tie, with Mr Obama polling 49% to Mr McCain's 48%.

The latest Gallup daily tracking poll of registered voters gave Mr McCain a lead of 49% to Mr Obama's 44%.
Being a Briton, I don't watch US news, so I can only rely on the impressions of other people. From the comments I read in this thread, it seems that US media is full of either lazy ass goits or ones who are restricted/guided in what they present to the public - I thought that was just Fox News, which is a joke of a channel. So what's the score? I'm curious.
 
VanMardigan said:
Looking like the Kerry/Bush map. Was hoping for Obama to switch some of the red states, because Colorado won't be enough if he doesn't win Ohio/Florida, unless he brings New Mexico/Nevada along.

The Palin pick has solidified many of the once weak Bush states and given McCain the advantage there. Iowa is a lock, NM seems like a lock (we'll see in a few hours), Nevada seems to lean Obama, but my confidence level on Ohio/Florida/Virginia/Colorado isn't particularly high. The good thing is that Obama only needs one of those
 

thekad

Banned
smh @ this lipstick thing. I didn't think I could lose any more faith in the media, but they continue to prove me wrong. Is it getting as much play on CNN as it is on MSNBC?
 
Gaborn said:
I assume the party chairman of a state is a surrogate of that party's candidate. And either way you can't on the one hand blame your opponent for "swift boat politics" for rumor mongering the campaign proper isn't engaging in and disavow YOUR surrogates negative remarks.
Well, the words 'surrogate' and 'supporter' are often interchangable depending on the convenience.

To elaborate, the word 'surrogate' to me implies some sort of official link to the campaign, serving as a sort of spokesperson for the campaign. Prominent, well known supporters can also serve as unofficial spokespersons for the campaign as well, sometimes.

I'm just mainly asking if ill-conceived remarks from the Democratic chair in South Carolina can really be considered grounds for an attack on Obama.
 

Tamanon

Banned
AndyIsTheMoney said:
so tell me they don't exist

I never said anything of the sort, ya loon. If terrorists "existing" in an area requires us to declare war and set up an occupation, well then we're probably looking at a massive draft and occupying our own country.
 

Gaborn

Member
Tamanon said:
I dunno, McCain's been letting his State GOP leaders run free with their attacks with nary a glance. Not word one about them!:p

And to the poll numbers, those are actually really good, IMO. Also, Bill Clinton to stump in Florida later this month.

That's my point. Both camapaigns need to take responsibility for their surrogates remarks. Obama's calling McCain's campaign on fear mongering and smears but it's letting it's own surrogates make equally ridiculous statements. It's simply not helpful but it's worse for Obama because he's been campaigning on "change" and yet his surrogates are engaging in smear tactics (hell, look at Wesley Clark's meltdown which suddenly the Obama campaign backed away from as if they NEVER told him to say it :lol :lol :lol )
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
PhoenixDark said:
The Palin pick has solidified many of the once weak Bush states and given McCain the advantage there. Iowa is a lock, NM seems like a lock (we'll see in a few hours), Nevada seems to lean Obama, but my confidence level on Ohio/Florida/Virginia/Colorado isn't particularly high. The good thing is that Obama only needs one of those
Virginia is for haters.
Gaborn said:
That's my point. Both camapaigns need to take responsibility for their surrogates remarks. Obama's calling McCain's campaign on fear mongering and smears but it's letting it's own surrogates make equally ridiculous statements. It's simply not helpful but it's worse for Obama because he's been campaigning on "change" and yet his surrogates are engaging in smear tactics (hell, look at Wesley Clark's meltdown which suddenly the Obama campaign backed away from as if they NEVER told him to say it :lol :lol :lol )

While you might not like what that SC surrogate said, she still had some truth to it.

Why didn't McCain pick many of the more qualified and experienced female republicans? More popular and more recognizable, too?

Here's a hint: they are pro-choice. Also, Clark was not a surrogate.
 
I feel good about Colorado, to be honest-McCain's never polled well there and Obama kept his lead even after the Palin pick and the convention-which by any conventional meausre should be his campaign's high water mark. I just don't want to have to stay up until midnight EST drinking myself into a stupor to stay sane while F5'ing state board of election results on election night. I want this shit over by 10PM EST at the latest, if possible.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Gaborn said:
That's my point. Both camapaigns need to take responsibility for their surrogates remarks. Obama's calling McCain's campaign on fear mongering and smears but it's letting it's own surrogates make equally ridiculous statements. It's simply not helpful but it's worse for Obama because he's been campaigning on "change" and yet his surrogates are engaging in smear tactics (hell, look at Wesley Clark's meltdown which suddenly the Obama campaign backed away from as if they NEVER told him to say it :lol :lol :lol )

Clark was never an Obama surrogate. Do you believe that all Democratic party members are surrogates?
 

Crisis

Banned
Tamanon said:
Odd, you probably haven't seen the 3 or 4 negative ads Obama put out in the past few days. What can he do? He attacks on the stump, he attacks on the air, his surrogates attack. He can't force the media to cover things.

No I haven't seen the negative attack ads on TV like I have McCain's. Obama is attacking on issues alone and it's not enough. He's more than qualified on the issues and I don't think anyone's disputing that. What he needs to do is stop holding back - which he is doing. That will force the media to cover it. How much negative press has Obama gotten over ridiculous bullshit? First it was that he was a Muslim then it was Jeremiah Wright then it was the flag lapel pin then it was "whitey" then it was finger-gate then it was bitter then it was elitist then it was "not experienced enough" then it was "omg stop attacking me Obama" then it was this lipstick on a pig comment that McCain himself has used multiple times before. The media simply doesn't do this shit to McCain because Obama and his subordinates have been trying to play it classy. I think it's reached the end of its usefulness. Throughout every single fucking retarded accusation against Obama he's managed to weather it but it's starting to break down because of the constant barrage of untrue ads. There are so many things you could LEGITIMATELY get McCain on that Obama doesn't even touch. It's really making me lose heart in his ability to win this election. I know the electoral college is still soundly behind Obama but I'm worried. This doesn't look great and frankly he needs to do something to get the negative press on McCain and ESPECIALLY Palin.
 
Parl said:
Question: Are neutral news articles which attempt to cover all notable points, like this one (from BBC News - as mainstream as you can get), commonplace in US mainstream media?
Nope, just regurgitate the talking points and keep it moving.

Neutral news articles like the ones that get posted get the Republicans to defame the news outlet that publishes/airs them by calling them part of the "liberal media elite".

Basically they scare news outlets into not putting all those facts in there because facts are liberally biased.

The Republicans also paint the BBC News as being liberally biased.

Reading that BBC article makes me weep for America, since an article like that would never see the light of day here.
 
SnakeXs said:
And better yet why is sitting in Iraq conducive to "winning".

did you read my response? when you say sitting you mean providing security right? cause that's what we are doing since the surge. Security is necessary for any effective government to be built.
 
Fragamemnon said:
I feel good about Colorado, to be honest-McCain's never polled well there and Obama kept his lead even after the Palin pick and the convention-which by any conventional meausre should be his campaign's high water mark. I just don't want to have to stay up until midnight EST drinking myself into a stupor to stay sane while F5'ing state board of election results on election night. I want this shit over by 10PM EST at the latest, if possible.
go fish




I'm requesting off for Nov. 5th
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
PhoenixDark said:
The Palin pick has solidified many of the once weak Bush states and given McCain the advantage there. Iowa is a lock, NM seems like a lock (we'll see in a few hours), Nevada seems to lean Obama, but my confidence level on Ohio/Florida/Virginia/Colorado isn't particularly high. The good thing is that Obama only needs one of those

Yeah, I had forgotten about Iowa. This means New Mexico PLUS Colorado would put him over the top. Or Colorado/Nevada, but I'm less confident about that combination.
 

Hootie

Member
PhatSaqs said:
Biden in NH right now talking health care. Man he and Barack really seem to have their shit together on the issues.

Yes they do indeed, but unfortunately issues are not the biggest factor in a lot of people's voting decision.

Sad, but true.

thisisamericadude.gif
 
Tamanon said:
I never said anything of the sort, ya loon. If terrorists "existing" in an area requires us to declare war and set up an occupation, well then we're probably looking at a massive draft and occupying our own country.

if you would have read my entire original response, you would have saw that i said 1)whether you agree Iraq was the right place to go, and 2)whether or not it creates more terrorist by us being there.

but now that we are there, we cant undue it. so the question would be is what is the best thing to do no that we are involved. To which i believe is stay until the Iraqi government is effective enough to support itself and not crumble when we leave.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
If Obama is up 6 in NH post-convention, then it's safe to take it out of the swing column. Barring some craziness in Michigan, Kerry/IA/NM is go. All that's left is CO/FL/OH/VA.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
AndyIsTheMoney said:
look up sarcasm in the dictionary. there's also a vast difference in, say, how the EU approaches terrorism (oversimplified here, but primarily a security issue that favors holistic solutions) and how the US/Atlanticists view it (military and WARRRRRRRRRRR). i'm sure your keen Google skills will pull up the relevant information.
 

Tamanon

Banned
AndyIsTheMoney said:
if you would have read my entire original response, you would have saw that i said 1)whether you agree Iraq was the right place to go, and 2)whether or not it creates more terrorist by us being there.

but now that we are there, we cant undue it. so the question would be is what is the best thing to do no that we are involved. To which i believe is stay until the Iraqi government is effective enough to support itself and not crumble when we leave.

When do we stop paying the Sons of Iraq? It's not a simple cut-and-dry approach to war or occupation. Troops have really not much to do with it. "security" is meaningless in a place like that. There is no way we can ever replace the security they had before coming in, no matter what it's Iran's playground now. The best thing we can do is just get out of there while we can.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Gaborn said:
That's my point. Both camapaigns need to take responsibility for their surrogates remarks. Obama's calling McCain's campaign on fear mongering and smears but it's letting it's own surrogates make equally ridiculous statements. It's simply not helpful but it's worse for Obama because he's been campaigning on "change" and yet his surrogates are engaging in smear tactics (hell, look at Wesley Clark's meltdown which suddenly the Obama campaign backed away from as if they NEVER told him to say it :lol :lol :lol )

Obama instructed Clark to question McCain's POW-time in relation to being President? News to me. I assume you have links revealing said connection considering your claim was worth 3 of these: :lol

Also, why do you seem full of shit most of the time the way I feel independents mostly are? I want to think you aren't but you have that same smug sense of perched loftiness they seem to exude. Think Lou Dobbs.
 

gcubed

Member
Fragamemnon said:
I feel good about Colorado, to be honest-McCain's never polled well there and Obama kept his lead even after the Palin pick and the convention-which by any conventional meausre should be his campaign's high water mark. I just don't want to have to stay up until midnight EST drinking myself into a stupor to stay sane while F5'ing state board of election results on election night. I want this shit over by 10PM EST at the latest, if possible.

the numbers releasing today, they are recent numbers? So basically, it is post repub convention bounce for McCain, and in some of the close states, you may consider this as high as he may possibly go?

If these numbers are the last day or 2, shit, i'll take it.
 
bob_arctor said:
Tell you who doesn't exist?

he said who are the extremists, where are they, etc. My response was tell me they dont exists. you guys really should go back and read the posts before you all hurry in and attack the opposing viewpoints.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
tanod said:
It's a web-only ad that some TV stations played this morning. It's despicable but the only places that would show it are Republican blogs and the McCain campaign website. Best not to draw any attention to it.

its on cnn as well. basically, every single negative mccain ad gets free publicity on cnn and the like. meanwhile, you barely see them play obama ads
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
thekad said:
PD: Nevada doesn't lean Obama.

It's in a dead-heat [no, literally this time] on Pollster.com average, and +3 Obama in latest Research 2000 poll.
 
PhatSaqs said:
Biden in NH right now talking health care. Man he and Barack really seem to have their shit together on the issues.
I was really impressed with Biden when I saw him here yesterday. Confident, knowledgable and intimidating, I'd hate to have to debate the guy :lol
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
AndyIsTheMoney said:
so tell me they don't exist

I think his point is actually that there isn't a concrete enemy. It's not a state, it's not a country, it's not a city. It's an idealistic group, or a bunch of them. Guerrilla groups that have most likely multiplied dramatically by the occupation of the middle-eastern countries - and by attempting to provide 'security' more than enough innocent people have been caught in the middle of the two fighting parties.

Pulling out would kind of seem like they lost, but staying so long has only caused a whole slew of new problems. Sucks to be the U.S. I guess.

Edit: But I think it's more important that lives are preserved, rather than pride. So if pulling out means less people die and America is blushing on the way out, well all for the best I guess - but you're right - no one knows what'll happen if they leave now - I think they probably should though.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Tamanon said:
When do we stop paying the Sons of Iraq?
when our troops withdraw and Maliki decides he wants to force them out of the security apparatus.

this whole premise is bogus - the biggest threat to Iraq isn't external anymore - it's the power struggle between the now-dominant Shiites and aggrieved Sunnis.
 
scorcho said:
look up sarcasm in the dictionary. there's also a vast difference in, say, how the EU approaches terrorism (oversimplified here, but primarily a security issue that favors holistic solutions) and how the US/Atlanticists view it (military and WARRRRRRRRRRR). i'm sure your keen Google skills will pull up the relevant information.

it is a global problem, and many major countries have dealt with it. and over time will deal with it more. War and occupation isn't the right answer to it, allies and cooperation are. but now that we are in Iraq it was be worse off for us and the Iraqi people to leave when the surge is successful. We should stay at most a few years to allow the government to effectively build and sustain itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom