Originally Posted By mawnck I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that Laughing Place, of all boards, would not at least point out the most important thing that has been said in this topic: >>the digger we deep, ,the more we find.<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <On Morning joe today, Chuck todd talked about a study just released, showing the Obama campaign has been more negative than the McCain campaign since the conventions.> Let's remember that there's a difference between negative ads and dirty or dishonest ads. A positive ad is "you should vote for me because..." A negative ad is "you should not vote for my opponent, because..." Negative ads can be legit, providing they're not dishonest. A legit negative Obama ad would be "John McCain has voted with Bush over 90% of the time and favors nearly identical policies on the most important issues facing us. He represents a continuation of those policies." A legit negative McCain ad would be "Barack Obama has less than 4 years experience as a Senator and very little experience on foreign policy." Those are negative ads, but quite fair. And yes, since the conventions many of Obama's ads have been of the negative sort, saying some variation of "McCain favors continuing Bush's policies." So Obama may have been "more negative" since the conventions than McCain, but there's no indication he's been more dirty. Several of McCain's ads have been downright dishonest (the sex ed one, for instance). I haven't seen Obama's Spanish-language ad, but if it attempts to say that McCain and Limbaugh have similar feelings on immigration, then that would be dishonest and we liberals should not be shy in saying so. Here's a good column from a middle of the road guy (leans a bit left, but likes McCain and supported the Iraq war, for instance): <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opklu185847315sep18,0,6197140.column" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/news/op...0.column</a> "Both McCain and Obama are better than the campaigns they've been running. McCain emerged as an attractive candidate in 2000 when he was riding his Straight Talk Express bus. But he lost the critical South Carolina primary to a George W. Bush, who hammered him with distortions. Eight years later, he's listening to some of Bush's consultants. Throughout the primary, Obama seemed so fresh and different. Some of that has worn off, as he listened to the consultants and rejected a series of town hall debates with McCain and opted out of public funding for the presidential campaign. The mainstream media, in an effort for balance, is sometimes too quick to follow a negative about one candidate with a negative about the other, and I don't want to fall into the trap of equivalency here: To Obama's credit, he has at least said that solving our problems won't be easy and that it will take sacrifice. And McCain's campaign has more distortions and outright lies than Obama's."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Palin was a very good pick, and I believe it will show in the end." That's certainly where the ticket will take it come election time.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>LOL!!! We will see.<< McCain's slipping a bit in the polls. If it continues, you're going to see some spectacularly evil ads from the GOP. Photoshopped pictures of Michelle introducing the kids to Fidel Castro and such. Will they work? I suspect they will. And then, once McCain's in there, the bipartisanship will start. Right?
