Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

McCain plans to get personal

  • Oct. 6th, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Leonard Doyle writes in The Independent: 'With less than a month to go in the marathon race for the US presidency, and Barack Obama forging ahead in most of the key states where the election will be decided, John McCain and his Republican allies are preparing a new round of deeply personal attacks on the Democratic front-runner in an attempt to seize back the initiative.


Struggling as the effects of the credit crunch and the deep unpopularity of President George Bush turn voters against him, Mr McCain plans to focus on "who Obama is", including questioning his character, "liberal" record and "too risky" proposals.' Read more.

Question: Is Obama's character a weakness? Is he too liberal an too risky? Or is McCain running a high risk strategy as the polls turn against him?


( Comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
credendovides wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 09:59 am (UTC)
Once again, could you refrain from unnecessary font colors? It makes it difficult for people who normally read on a dark background.
hoppytoad79 wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 10:36 am (UTC)
I find what McCain is intending to do extremely offensive and loathsome. The longer the campaign goes, the more reasons McCain gives me not to vote for him.
valknott wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 10:50 am (UTC)
It's time for the GOP to use fear and smear. They know that McCain will lose if everything remains as is, so they feel they have nothing to lose. For McCain to agree to this is reprehensible. His legacy will be that of an American POW hero who, in the end, was as power-hungry, hypocritical and low-down dirty as any other run of the mill politician.

Obama's character is not an issue, but you can smear anyone. The GOP could smear Mother Teresa and Gandhi if they wished. I think Obama should start to bring up the Keating 5 if McCain wants to play dirty.

Yes, they will trot out Rev. Wright, Ayers, and the time honored hot button issues of gays, abortion and guns. So predictable. But this time, the swiftboating will not work and when they attempt to paint Obama as a wild-eyed radical liberal/socialist/commie who hates white people, it ain't gonna work.
bossiballs wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 12:33 pm (UTC)
Obamas character shines through to his credit, and is exactly what is wanted and needed.

McCain comes across as having roughly the character traits of Abraham Simpson.

One is an and.

One is a stuck in the but syndrome.

If, Obama keeps his head, when all about him are losing theirs, and blaming it on being liberal. Being liberal becomes the way to go.

docjanlj08 wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 01:12 pm (UTC)
This November....
I haven't voted in years. But this November, I intend to do my civic duty; I intend to flip a coin.
[ps: I am 'old school'; I have no idea what 'logging your IP address' means.]
docjanlj08 wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC)
Re: Can't decide...
Can't decide whether to vote Palin-McCain or Obama-Whatzisname. [Oops. Sorry. It's McCain-Palin.]
docjanlj08 wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 01:29 pm (UTC)
Why are we Americans so often unable to see the truth? Why must we always keep our head buried in the sand...?
The real 'presidential' battle is between a young black male and a young white female.
If you think Obama is any good, then vote for him. If you think that the next president (whomever) is going to get screwed by history and by our economy, then save M-P until next term.
the_paulr wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 01:33 pm (UTC)
I think McCain is taking a great risk by attacking Obama's character, considering the times in his own life when he's shown a distinct lack of character himself.
resistdeath wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC)
He lacks character for sure. He was laughing and smiling at Obama's statements at the debate, rather than being respectful. Let us also mention the lack of eye contact.

It's the typical Republican way to attack, attack, attack. They put no blame on themselves, it's always the other person. I just hope Obama does not do the same back at him.
tyskkvinna wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 02:12 pm (UTC)
I think they would be attacking the candidates character, no matter who the opponent was.
spaceygirl2000 wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:03 pm (UTC)
it looks desperate. and I think is a pretty big mistake.

but alas, a lot of people fall for this personal stuff. just like they use the personal stuff with Palin.

I don't care if my president is a big stiff jerk - if I agree with his/her agenda then I am going to vote for them. if this is really America, their background shouldn't matter - it should be their present circumstance, and their plans for the future that should matter.

to me is just seems like a waste of time, a distraction, when we could be discussing REAL issues.

tiny_josser wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:19 pm (UTC)
I don't care if my president is a big stiff jerk - if I agree with his/her agenda then I am going to vote for them.
I agree. Remember when Gore was running? I don't remember hearing people talk about ANYTHING more then how boring and stiff he was. It was ridiculous. To this day I'm not even sure where he stood on certain issues because that was all that was being talked about.
mamculuna wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:10 pm (UTC)
Patriotism may be the last refuge of a scoundrel, but character assassination is the next to last.

I am hoping that he won't be able to find anything that the Clintons didn't already dredge up and drain of impact.
tiny_josser wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:17 pm (UTC)
I think McCain is really floundering and figures turning it up some notches on the mudslinging wont hurt him. I feel like at this point, people who dislike Obama will dislike him more after McCain is done and the people who like Obama will dislike McCain. He could very well sway many people who aren't sure who to vote for, but the majority will swing away from him if McCain isn't very careful.
siliconshaman wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:36 pm (UTC)
So, the GOP tactics when the going gets tough, is to sleaze their way into power, to drag the name of someone who's just doing what they think is right though the mud, to lie, cheat and attempt to steal the election by any means necessary.

Does anyone really think this is a good thing for the person who wishes to be President to do?

Does America really want a government that won't scruple to use every low-down dirty, mean-spirited, dishonourable and out-right illegal trick in the book...just to get what they want?
tyskkvinna wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 03:49 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately... I think a lot of people look at what's said, and even if it's been invalidated, proved false completely, will still have lingering questions. Or at least, I've been encountering such people in person lately.

The line of thinking that's been presented to me has been "Well, if he didn't have anything to bring up.. why did they bring it to light at all? There's got to be something."

I think the behaviour of some of the people working on these campaigns has been absolutely despicable.
(no subject) - allhatnocattle - Oct. 6th, 2008 05:14 am (UTC) Expand
vonilyn wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 04:18 pm (UTC)
i know we're supposed to be the ones answering the questions, rather than asking, but this whole issue begs certain questions that i've not seen asked or answered anywhere online or in the news.

i find the media attention to the "next new tactic" to be confusing. and honestly, it's an abuse of the freedom of the press, regardless of the candidates/party. there's all this supposition because mccain camp decided to advertise their next "Strategy". there is no NEWS, just the promise of "after this commercial break." kind of teasers until the candidate moves, then it's more supposition and "analysis."

if the "tactic" is so superficial that it has to be called, like pool-table pocket call, what is it's value? the media knows what's coming, is ramping up for it, and waiting for the next soundbite. you can say "it's just politics" but if politics have become that predictable, why do we allow it? both sides are called on truths, lies, and the favorite word this election is "spin", and the newspapers, reporters, and even us bloggers, are eating it up like candy. but nothing gets done about it. it's a huge disservice to the country that the press was originally created to protect.

so a question i have for the journalists is why? it's not hard hitting, it's not first, it's the exact same thing as every one else in that racket. there's nothing explosive or important when the campaigns are admitting a week in advance that they're going to open the flood gates to the "character assassinations" instead of discuss their platform.

and why is it we, as americans, hold our advertising agencies to certain bare-minimum amounts of truth to commercials, or printed media - such as the disclaimers on medical commercials about their side effects - but in election campaigns, confusion and misdirection goes unchecked? none of the people watching tv ads for viagra are doctors, so they have to legally be informed about side effects. none of the people being targeted by negative-attack-ads from either side of the campaign aisle are politicians, so why is there not a requirement of factual basis disclaimers?

this is america after all, land of lawyers and frivolous law suits, so what is the line between "Attack ads" and actionable slander/libel being used to misdirect voters?

what is the definition of voter-manipulation or fraud?
kwsapphire wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 04:40 pm (UTC)
It's not that Obama's character is a weakness. He's not really all that liberal. It's more that there are so many stupid, head-in-the-sand, la la la I can't hear you and I don't read books and believe everything Fox News says Americans that will believe every lie that comes out of McCains face.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Oct. 5th, 2008 04:56 pm (UTC) Expand
resistdeath wrote:
Oct. 5th, 2008 06:03 pm (UTC)
It is because the Republicans think that liberals cannot get things done because they are trying to please everyone. Funny, huh?
(no subject) - tyskkvinna - Oct. 6th, 2008 01:21 am (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( Comment )