I never said those things were specifically in the ad.. I merely stated that, by mocking McCain for not using a computer, the ad insults seniors who also might not be comfortable using a computer and the ad mocks disabled people because one of the main reasons that McCain can't use a computer is because of his disability.

For example, let's say that FDR's GOP opponent ran an ad in the 1944 election that said FDR isn't fit for President because he won't change with the times and do the Tango. But, the ad DOESN'T say that he won't do the Tango because he is in a wheelchair..

You see the point? You don't mock someone who is disable just because they can't do things that others can do.

And that is what that ad did.

As to your other point, while I do believe that sometimes the ends justifies the means, I have always said that I am more liberal than most on here.. :D But it IS interesting to see that Democrats are adopting "the ends justifies the means" attitude. One more indication that Democrats are simply a pale imitation of Republicans.

It's funny how Democrats adopt the ends justifies the means attitude to win elections, but refuse that attitude when it comes to fighting terrorism.

I guess, for Democrats, saving American lives is less important to them than winning elections.

Barack would probably not have won the race if he hadn't started out with such a big lead.

Ex-squeeze me?? Baking Powder???

OBAMA had the big lead??

It was Hillary that had the big lead. It was Hillary that had the aura of inevitability.

And Obama overcame that huge lead by grabbing and holding the Moral High Ground. The one or two times he DID take a dip in the mud, he lost ground in the polls.

Obama beat the largest political juggernaut ever assembled by running a clean POSITIVE campaign. And THAT is how he is going to beat McCain. If Obama continues to be negative, he will lose.

@Elizabeth

What does a candidate do to mitigate that?

Simple..

Trust voters to be adults and to know right from wrong, truth from... er... ahem... Moosepoop... :D

Here is an excellent message on just that theme:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-ouellette/out-of-the-armchair-and-i_b_126334.html

Obama was supposed to be a different kind of politician. A different kind of leader.. If he runs his campaign with the same ol same ol political machinations, how are we supposed to trust him to be the agent of change he claims to be?

Michale.....

Here's one link to a Biden speech in St. Clair Shores, Michigan...you just have to scroll down to it and there may be more Biden events if you scroll further down.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/obamaroadblog

What does a candidate do to mitigate that?

I watched the ad instead of reading the AP press release titled "Obama Mocks McCain as Computer Illiterate in Ad"

Here's the link to the video:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/

What Obama is trying to do in this ad is to show a pattern of not changing. Especially since the Republican convention where John had a conversion and suddenly became the agent of change.

What he doesn't do or say in the ad:
- Say McCain is too old to be able to use a computer
- Mention anything about being disabled
- Talk badly about seniors

All of which you say is in the ad.

What if I changed the title of that AP article you read to "Obama Gets Tough on McCain as an Agent of Change"? Suddenly, it's a whole different spin on things.

The AP has taken to putting a conservative slant on news talking about how he's mocking McCain as computer illiterate. This fits the Republican narrative of Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. It's a very conservative spin on the ad:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5785969

I believe this ad is fair play. The point it is trying to get across is that McCain is not going to change any of Bush's policies. I see this as a very accurate portrayal based on the fact that McCain has stated he won't change any of Bush's policies. There is nothing untrue in the ad. And they are taking the fight to him.

Now it's really interesting to hear, though, from you Michale, an ends-justifies-the-means type of person, that you're asking Obama to not fight back. It has been proven that if you let the other person define you in a race, you will lose.

Look at how well Hillary faired once she focused on defining Obama more than herself. Barack would probably not have won the race if he hadn't started out with such a big lead. Hillary probably just regrets not changing strategies early enough.

I think the difference in my mind is that in a McCain ad such as the Paris Hilton celebrity ad, is that this ad makes character accusations that have no basis in fact. The ad is trying to say that Obama is more interested in being a celebrity than running for President. But is there any basis for this portrayal? No. Obama has never stated his interest in being a celebrity. McCain only gains because conservatives blame everything in America on liberals, elitists, and Hollywood.

So I would agree with CW that there is a distinction in the types of campaigns run. May have to sort out more what that distinction is, but there is a distinction.

I think in order to win a Presidential election, you not only have to manage your brand, but you have to draw distinctions between yourself and your opponent.

What really blows my mind is that you, an end-justifies-the-means type of person, are arguing for a principle. When did that happen :)?

David

Glad ta see yer still kicking!! Hadn't heard much from you lately.. :D

Thanx for establishing the terms... What Obama IS doing is negative campaigning.

Because Obama simply cannot win were he to run the campaign Michale wants him to run.

Yer right. We disagree.. :D

Obama beat Hillary running just that kind of campaign. And Hillary's a LOT more formidable of an opponent than McCain...

Obama PROVED that sometimes, nice guys DO finish first. What I can't understand is why Democrats want to throw out that winning formula.

@akadjian

I haven't seen any Democrats mocking McCain because of his disability. So not sure what you're referring to.

Obama launched an ad a few days ago mocking McCain for his lack of computer usage, saying McCain was too old to be able to use a computer... But (of course) what the ad DIDN'T say is that McCain can't use a computer because he is disabled.

So, in one fell swoop, the Obama campaign shat upon disabled people AND seniors.

THAT is the kind of negative campaigning that is going to sink Obama's campaign. That type of crap is beneath him and he should publicly fire the moron who came up with that ad idea.

Michale....

That's an interesting way to put it. If I understand you correctly, negative ads use the truth to contrast an opponent's position. Attack ads are purely ad hominem attacks. Something along those lines.

It's interesting that Karl Rove says McCain's ads don't even pass the proof test.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/

Michale, in my gut, I'll have to admit I'm still not sure I like either. I honestly would like to see the debate stay above the fray and on issues. But perhaps you are right that I feel as if, if push comes to shove, Obama should fight back and not let McCain define both himself and Obama. Though I think Obama has to be careful and stick to the truth.

It's an interesting discussion and has given me food for thought. Now back to work. More later.

David

I haven't seen any Democrats mocking McCain because of his disability. So not sure what you're referring to. Didn't McCain admit that he's not particularly computer savvy?

I have to jump into this fray with my "Grammar Police" hat on. (Or maybe that should be "on my head"... something about ending sentences with prepositions? hmmm... have to check).

Ahem.

I'm going to neutrally lay out how I define terms, and then if you'd like to use them (so we can stay on the same page, as it were) feel free.

What I call "negative campaigning" is close to the wiki example Michale quoted. I differentiate this with "attack ads" in a very significant way, though.

Because "negative campaigning" -- i.e., running ads that negatively point out your opponent's bad points is actually a good thing if done right. Even thought the word "negative" is right in the term, it can actually be a positive for your campaign. If done right. Because the big, bad secret is: negative ads work. Republicans have shown time and time again this is true.

But there's a flip side to all of that, which is "attack ads" -- ads which are dishonest and which are ad hominem attacks. Now, these CAN work, in terms of winning an election (see: Kerry, Swiftboaters). But if they are exposed as being slime right after they are run, then they can backfire (which I believe is happening to McCain right now... time will tell).

So, as for the 2008 campaign, McCain has been running some pretty vicious attack ads. Obama has responded with some negative ads against McCain. Again, I see Obama's move as a good thing. You MUST define your opponent, and they only way to define your opponent (assuming you want to win) is negatively. This is where I presume we disagree, Michale, and where I think akadjian and I agree. Because Obama simply cannot win were he to run the campaign Michale wants him to run. He would be buried under the slime and mud. That's my opinion, and it may prove to be wrong, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

The danger is edging over from "negative" to "attack." Obama's "honor" ad is on the border, I'd have to say, and an argument could be made either way. But I still think it's a brilliant move on his part, since (1) almost the entire media universe is saying the same thing (the ad is mostly headlines), and (2) when you start voters questioning a candidate's honesty, they stop believing everything they say (see: Hillary Clinton, sniper fire). And, MUCH more than agreeing on issues, a LOT of voters vote on who they can "trust." So it's worth the risk, in my opinion.

Anyway, just wanted to turn the debate back to the essential point: is Obama running "negative" (but not "attack") ads a good thing or bad thing? Because it is an issue worthy of debate here. But let's not get sidetracked into semantics, let's debate the heart of the matter.

OK, taking Grammar Police hat off now...

-CW

I am a funny kind of lotsa things. :D

Why do I support Obama??

I support Obama because he represents much needed change.. He is (or more accurately was) a new and exciting type of politician. One who doesn't have to scrape around in the mud to prove he's tough.. A candidate who took on the largest political juggernaut ever assembled and bested them. Not by dirty tricks, or mud-slinging or any other same ol same ol political crap, but by taking the moral high ground and rising above the mud.

THAT is how Obama beat Hillary Clinton and THAT is how Obama will beat John McCain.

You are the only person in this discussion who is saying he is campaigning negatively.

Well, as we have established, your definition of what constitutes negative campaigning is flawed and incorrect..

You and all the other Dems have the attitude that it's not negative if it's true..

Which is funny, because when the McCain speaks about Obama's connections to Ayers (which are true) ya'all turn around and call that "negative campaigning"...

But when the Democrats mock John McCain because he can't use a computer due to his disabilities, ya'all say, "It's not negative campaigning, because it's true."

You see the hypocrisy???

Man up.... If ya'all want Obama to beat the GOP to a pulp to soothe ya'all's egos, at least have the decency to be honest about it and call it what it is..

You want Obama to go negative... I'll give ya'all here the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's because ya'all honestly think that the only way that Obama can beat McCain is to campaign like a Republican.

But, as I said.. At least be honest and call it what it is..

It's negative campaigning.. Pure and simple..

And Obama doesn't do negative very well. He doesn't fight well in the mud...

Here's a real good article on exactly what I mean..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-ouellette/out-of-the-armchair-and-i_b_126334.html

I just can't help but wonder how ya'all are going to feel if Obama stays in the mud and, as a result, loses the election..

Michale.....

Are you sure you're not just telling us you're an Obama supporter so that we'll find your opinion more credible?

What do you like about Obama?

p.s. I believe Obama has run a very respectful campaign. He has continually returned to the issues to emphasize what he stands for. You are the only person in this discussion who is saying he is campaigning negatively.

Negative campaigning is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies. In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric which refers to an opponent, if only by way of contrast, but can also include attacks meant to destroy an opponent's character, which may veer into ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

As to the rest, you seem to be indicating that McCain is also negative campaigning... You also seem to indicate that it's the wrong thing to do.

So, why is it OK for Obama to go negative, but not for McCain??

Once again, I have to ask...

Why must a Democrat campaign like a Republican to win??

I must also point out that Obama beat the LARGEST political juggernaut ever assembled. And he did it by staying positive and on-message.

It's beyond me how anyone can logically and rationally think that Obama going negative will HELP him against McCain when recent history has proven otherwise..

Michale.....

Pointing out lies in McCain ads is not "negative campaigning." I believe "negative campaigning" is characterizing someone as a Muslim when they are not. Or calling someone a "celebrity" elitist when your families net worth is more than $100 million. Or blaming "liberals" for everything under the sun when your own party has been in charge and running the show for the last 8 years.

Neither is talking about corruption between the Bush administration and the oil/gas industries. Having the energy companies write energy policy is part of the problem w/ the current administration. When this happens, you get solutions like "drill, baby, drill" which show no positive vision for our country and primarily benefit oil and gas companies.

Kudos to Obama and Obama-ites for fighting, keeping their integrity, and holding their ground!

I just happened to be off yesterday with some time on my hands and I caught both Biden events in Michigan - live and in their entirety. Obama's website had some other Biden events but they don't seem to be there anymore and, last I checked the latest ones are not there...just a short clip.

Finding a speech by the Democratic vice presidential candidate SHOULD NOT BE THIS DIFFICULT!!! I won't have much time over the next week or so but I will try to find as many links as I can and post them here.

I don't mind telling you that I am reaching the point where I'm gonna start tuning ALL of this crap out and just watch the chips fall where they may. I'm sick of it!

This choice in this election should be a no-brainer but, evidently, it is not. I don't get it. When you get right down to it this is very simple stuff and anyone with half a pea brain should be able to comprehend what's going on here.

If we listen carefully and understand fully what the debates and talking points are telling us, then it is clear - to this observer, at least - that the choice is unambiguous and comes down to whether or not you want the next four years to be the same as the last eight!

It is really as simple as that - forget about all of the other extraneous BS that is taking over this election campaign.

Sorry for the rant - I thought this was supposed to make me feel better... :(

But, somethings are just over the top..

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080915/capt.6f9487e7392a4f5bb8f527fcb8712b63.obama_headquarters_cx204.jpg

I mean, seriously..

Is it just me or does anyone else find that picture really "spooky"....

Michale.....

Hey, c'mon, I mentioned Biden! Do you have any links to recent Biden speech transcripts? Call me lazy, but I'm thinking you probably have already bookmarked a few, and I'd like to read what he's been saying...

akadjian -

Bonus points for working in the phrase "drill, baby, drill"...

Heh heh.

-CW

I wonder if this just got buried in all of the news cycles about Ike.
- David

Now we will see if Obama's downward slide continues..

When it does, we'll know that going negative, slinging mud and always attacking is NOT what attracted independents to Obama in the first place.

"Ask yourself. Why do you seek the grail? Is it for his glory? Or for yours?"
-Kazim, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

Michale.....

Crossposted to HuffPo

But, Senator Obama didn't have the best "bridge" line - not by a long shot!

I guess you must have missed this one where Biden was talking about what McCain's idea of healthcare reform was all about. McCain, you see, wants to treat employer sponsored health plans as employment income and tax it as such...you make $40,000/year and your employee healthcare plan is worth $12,000 then you pay income tax on $52,000...just simple math really.

Biden goes on to inform that McCain wants to give a tax credit of $5000 for a healthcare plan that may actually cost more than $12,000 and your employer may decide, in view of that, that he or she no longer needs to provide a plan.

Biden's response..."Now, THAT'S a bridge to nowhere!"