Obama Ad backfires

When talking from a teleprompter, no one can top him, true. But when he doen't have a teleprompter or notes, he thinks though what he's going to say, leading to the "uhs" which happens with many people (myself included). So I don't see the problem as it doesn't make him look like a calculator just punching out the answers like of you knew the questions beforehand.Ezgam3r

Exactly. It's a shame that we put so much importance into how well someone speaks in front of a crowd. Does it really matter? It didn't seem to matter to republicans that Bush can't speak properly whether he's got a teleprompter or not.

I like to believe that we think the issues are more important, but I might just be living in a dream world...

Stop making things up just like in your other thread. People made fun of McCain before this ad because he doesn't know how to use a PC not because he's disabled.

[QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]There is a difference from being physically impaired from using a computer, and mentally not knowing how to use one. That Senator McCain is not currently knowledgeable about basic mainstream technologies like computers and email is a relevant point towards his qualifications for the office of which he is seeking. It's like someone not being aware of the significance of the Industrial Revolution twenty years after it happened. Edit: Pointing out this lack of knowledge is also very different from making fun of a physical impairment.Ninja-Hippo

Sorry have to disagree on the importance of a President not being a computer expert. Also do we really know how much or little he knows about computers? Even if he didn't he has people that can handle this for him. Foreign policy, Economy, etc seems a little more important than being able to maintain a facebook page , agree?

Do you not think it slightly concerning that if a member of the administration wished to contact McCain via email, he would have to have a member of staff print that email off for him to read? He would then have to write or dictate a reply for that person to go and type out and email back.

That just doesnt sound like someone who should be at the helm of a nation. That sounds like somebody who is out of touch, who should be retiring and settling down, not advancing to one of the most important jobs in the world.

*edit* That sounds like somebody who is out of touch, who should be retiring and settling down, not advancing to one of the most important jobs in the world. Yet he got us through the war

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

I can see it now.

General Joe:Mr. President you can call off the attack now, just give the confirmation.

Obama: Uhhh.....uuhh...I...will.....uh....now...uhhh...call... off..uh... the attack.. uh.

General Joe: Sorry Mr. President, you were just 2 seconds too late.

Obama: Uhhhh....Sorry..uh.

bdever32

Very nice analogy... except that it makes no sense. Nice try though.

Did you know FDR one of the most respected Presidents ever and one of the most important couldn't even walk on his own and was paralyzed from the waist down. Yet he had people that would allow him to walk. Same as how there are people that would handle that side for him. This is no a detraction in my opinion. But I can see how some might think otherwise.Erik_Lensherr

Your ability to walk does not make you out of touch. That's an actual disability. Being completely computer illiterate is not a disability, but a lack of knowledge and capability. Not being able to use email means you simply arent up to speed with current standards, and arent adequatly in touch with the working world around you to be president.

Well lets say we are in a situation where Obama decides that we need to use military force, then there is a peaceful alternative to the use of the military, but there is a very small window of time in which the alternative can be utilized. Then who ever is attacking has to get confirmation to stop the attack, but Obama can't finish a sentence. So the attack commences.smokeydabear076

There would never be a situation where peace and war has to be decided in the time it takes to finish a sentence. Never.

Well lets say we are in a situation where Obama decides that we need to use military force, then there is a peaceful alternative to the use of the military, but there is a very small window of time in which the alternative can be utilized. Then who ever is attacking has to get confirmation to stop the attack, but Obama can't finish a sentence. So the attack commences.smokeydabear076

Do you really think a situation would arise in which something would happen because the president - any president - didn't finish a sentence in time?

I mean, honestly.

[QUOTE="bdever32"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

I can see it now.

General Joe:Mr. President you can call off the attack now, just give the confirmation.

Obama: Uhhh.....uuhh...I...will.....uh....now...uhhh...call... off..uh... the attack.. uh.

General Joe: Sorry Mr. President, you were just 2 seconds too late.

Obama: Uhhhh....Sorry..uh.

smokeydabear076

Very nice analogy... except that it makes no sense. Nice try though.

Is the general public really fickle enough to allow McCain to play the POW card this many times? Are people genuinely going to vote for this guy because he was in the military forty years ago?Ninja-Hippo

When our country is in a state of war with Iraq and on the edge with several other countires (Iran, Venezuala, North Korea, Russia, etc..) Yeah I believe no matter how long ago military expreience is huge. Let's just say alot bigger than a law degree. Again this man has none , zero foreign policy experience add that to no military experience . It just doesn;t work in situation the US is facing.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Well lets say we are in a situation where Obama decides that we need to use military force, then there is a peaceful alternative to the use of the military, but there is a very small window of time in which the alternative can be utilized. Then who ever is attacking has to get confirmation to stop the attack, but Obama can't finish a sentence. So the attack commences.Ninja-Hippo

There would never be a situation where peace and war has to be decided in the time it takes to finish a sentence. Never.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="bdever32"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

I can see it now.

General Joe:Mr. President you can call off the attack now, just give the confirmation.

Obama: Uhhh.....uuhh...I...will.....uh....now...uhhh...call... off..uh... the attack.. uh.

General Joe: Sorry Mr. President, you were just 2 seconds too late.

Obama: Uhhhh....Sorry..uh.

nocoolnamejim

Very nice analogy... except that it makes no sense. Nice try though.

[QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"] Did you know FDR one of the most respected Presidents ever and one of the most important couldn't even walk on his own and was paralyzed from the waist down. Yet he had people that would allow him to walk. Same as how there are people that would handle that side for him. This is no a detraction in my opinion. But I can see how some might think otherwise.Ninja-Hippo

Your ability to walk does not make you out of touch. That's an actual disability. Being completely computer illiterate is not a disability, but a lack of knowledge and capability. Not being able to use email means you simply arent up to speed with current standards, and arent adequatly in touch with the working world around you to be president.

Well we can agree to disagree, however is this something that would sway you from voting for someone. I know it wouldn't for me. As I said these are things that are always done by staffers, you think bush writes his own email? I think not. Let's say there was an attack on our US network, you think Obama is gonna be like get me a computer I'll handle this.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Is the general public really fickle enough to allow McCain to play the POW card this many times? Are people genuinely going to vote for this guy because he was in the military forty years ago?Erik_Lensherr

When our country is in a state of war with Iraq and on the edge with several other countires (Iran, Venezuala, North Korea, Russia, etc..) Yeah I believe no matter how long ago military expreience is huge. Let's just say alot bigger than a law degree. Again this man has none , zero foreign policy experience add that to no military experience . It just doesn;t work in situation the US is facing.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="bdever32"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

I can see it now.

General Joe:Mr. President you can call off the attack now, just give the confirmation.

Obama: Uhhh.....uuhh...I...will.....uh....now...uhhh...call... off..uh... the attack.. uh.

General Joe: Sorry Mr. President, you were just 2 seconds too late.

Obama: Uhhhh....Sorry..uh.

smokeydabear076

Very nice analogy... except that it makes no sense. Nice try though.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Well lets say we are in a situation where Obama decides that we need to use military force, then there is a peaceful alternative to the use of the military, but there is a very small window of time in which the alternative can be utilized. Then who ever is attacking has to get confirmation to stop the attack, but Obama can't finish a sentence. So the attack commences.GabuEx

Do you really think a situation would arise in which something would happen because the president - any president - didn't finish a sentence in time?

I mean, honestly.

I am sorry but that down to earth, true as life statement made me laugh. I just tried to picture it in my head. :lol:

Well we can agree to disagree, however is this something that would sway you from voting for someone. I know it wouldn't for me. As I said these are things that are always done by staffers, you think bush writes his own email? I think not. Let's say there was an attack on our US network, you think Obama is gonna be like get me a computer I'll handle this.

Erik_Lensherr

[QUOTE="mfacek"][QUOTE="Squall18"][QUOTE="mfacek"][QUOTE="Squall18"]

Haha, uhhhhh, Obama, uhhhhhh, he, uhhhhh, ......uhhh, umm,. He's a , uhhhh, good at quick, uhh, uh uh, comebacks.

*crowd goes wild. Lol, sorry, he's a great speaker, but thats how he talks without a teleprompter.

Squall18

Wow! What a completely irrelevant post, thanks Squal! Hey, call me next time you have a debate about topics ranging from energy and the economy, to the war in Iraq and the Iranian Nuclear program. I'm sure you won't ever use a vocal filler to gather your thoughts and make a thought out logical point.

:roll:

Well, uhhhh, Ch-ch-change! We need to change washington.

Well, Obama you should have a lot to debate about. I would probably lose with pages and pages of his strategies and plans from orgainizing communities and a whopping 130 + days as senator (started campaigning after that). People worship the guy. I'm not saying hes a bad guy, he's just the greatest thing since sliced bread.:roll:

Drudgereport most un biased news source .

Then you should focus on refuting his policies and his expierence (or lack thereof). Not go on and on about how he is a poor orator off the teleprompter. Seriously, this is like the 5th time I've seen you comment on it in 2 days.

Since when do we care if a candidate is a poor orator off a teleprompter?

HAHA, don't make me laugh, oops. Bush being an aweful speaker was your definition of an idiot. And you don't care, please....

I never said that, you must be mistaking me for someone else. I don't think Bush being a bad orator makes him an idiot, but his failed policies do.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="bdever32"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

I can see it now.

General Joe:Mr. President you can call off the attack now, just give the confirmation.

Obama: Uhhh.....uuhh...I...will.....uh....now...uhhh...call... off..uh... the attack.. uh.

General Joe: Sorry Mr. President, you were just 2 seconds too late.

Obama: Uhhhh....Sorry..uh.

nocoolnamejim

Very nice analogy... except that it makes no sense. Nice try though.

[QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Is the general public really fickle enough to allow McCain to play the POW card this many times? Are people genuinely going to vote for this guy because he was in the military forty years ago?nocoolnamejim

When our country is in a state of war with Iraq and on the edge with several other countires (Iran, Venezuala, North Korea, Russia, etc..) Yeah I believe no matter how long ago military expreience is huge. Let's just say alot bigger than a law degree. Again this man has none , zero foreign policy experience add that to no military experience . It just doesn;t work in situation the US is facing.

Yes but interpretation of the constitution is not an Executive priviledge that is the job of the Judicial branch.

Obama would be better suited for a run at the supreme court

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Is the general public really fickle enough to allow McCain to play the POW card this many times? Are people genuinely going to vote for this guy because he was in the military forty years ago?Erik_Lensherr

When our country is in a state of war with Iraq and on the edge with several other countires (Iran, Venezuala, North Korea, Russia, etc..) Yeah I believe no matter how long ago military expreience is huge. Let's just say alot bigger than a law degree. Again this man has none , zero foreign policy experience add that to no military experience . It just doesn;t work in situation the US is facing.

Yes but interpretation of the constitution is not an Executive priviledge that is the job of the Judicial branch.

[QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Is the general public really fickle enough to allow McCain to play the POW card this many times? Are people genuinely going to vote for this guy because he was in the military forty years ago?nocoolnamejim

When our country is in a state of war with Iraq and on the edge with several other countires (Iran, Venezuala, North Korea, Russia, etc..) Yeah I believe no matter how long ago military expreience is huge. Let's just say alot bigger than a law degree. Again this man has none , zero foreign policy experience add that to no military experience . It just doesn;t work in situation the US is facing.

Yes but interpretation of the constitution is not an Executive priviledge that is the job of the Judicial branch.

We might disagree about this also but as far as I'm concerned people that kill innocent civilians on purpose and behead people not involved in the war are not awarded constitutional rights or geneva convention rights. If this was a war against an established country it would be different these Al-Queda scum deserve nothing. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are totally acceptable to me with these people.

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.mysterylobster

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

I dont think he meant it that way dude.

But I do think he's an *** for saying that about McCain.

We might disagree about this also but as far as I'm concerned people that kill innocent civilians on purpose and behead people not involved in the war are not awarded constitutional rights or geneva convention rights. If this was a war against an established country it would be different these Al-Queda scum deserve nothing. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are totally acceptable to me with these people.Erik_Lensherr

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.GetEnTheKitchen

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

I dont think he meant it that way dude.

But I do think he's an *** for saying that about McCain.

/facepalm

He was talking about his policies, not his character. Mccain has used it before as well. WHAT A MONSTER RIGHT! :roll:

[QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]We might disagree about this also but as far as I'm concerned people that kill innocent civilians on purpose and behead people not involved in the war are not awarded constitutional rights or geneva convention rights. If this was a war against an established country it would be different these Al-Queda scum deserve nothing. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are totally acceptable to me with these people.nocoolnamejim

Ah the old catch 22, I totally understand where you're coming from. But these people weren't just picked up because they look arabic. There is a good reason most are there. Also what kind of legal recourse would someone get that is not even a US citizen, you have to remember we are at WAR. With a faceless "country". This is not a cival case. I know there is potential for someone inoccent to get caught up in this but inoccent people get the wrong end of the law all the time( not that it makes it right). If this were US citizens (I know some are, very few) it would be different. We are talking about people that strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people in the name of god. If they don't care about there own lives and have no regard for humanity normal interrogation techniques have 0 chance to work. Like I alluded to before these are circumstances the civilized world has no dealt with before.

You know, there is such thing as being able to use a computer without a keyboard.

McCain just doesn't know how to use one period. And we're electing this man for president. And if he dies in office....*shudders*

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]We might disagree about this also but as far as I'm concerned people that kill innocent civilians on purpose and behead people not involved in the war are not awarded constitutional rights or geneva convention rights. If this was a war against an established country it would be different these Al-Queda scum deserve nothing. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are totally acceptable to me with these people.Erik_Lensherr

Ah the old catch 22, I totally understand where you're coming from. But these people weren't just picked up because they look arabic. There is a good reason most are there. Also what kind of legal recourse would someone get that is not even a US citizen, you have to remember we are at WAR. With a faceless "country". This is not a cival case. I know there is potential for someone inoccent to get caught up in this but inoccent people get the wrong end of the law all the time( not that it makes it right). If this were US citizens (I know some are, very few) it would be different. We are talking about people that strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people in the name of god. If they don't care about there own lives and have no regard for humanity normal interrogation techniques have 0 chance to work. Like I alluded to before these are circumstances the civilized world has no dealt with before.

Ah the old catch 22, I totally understand where you're coming from. But these people weren't just picked up because they look arabic. There is a good reason most are there. Also what kind of legal recourse would someone get that is not even a US citizen, you have to remember we are at WAR. With a faceless "country". This is not a cival case. I know there is potential for someone inoccent to get caught up in this but inoccent people get the wrong end of the law all the time( not that it makes it right). If this were US citizens (I know some are, very few) it would be different. We are talking about people that strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people in the name of god. If they don't care about there own lives and have no regard for humanity normal interrogation techniques have 0 chance to work. Like I alluded to before these are circumstances the civilized world has no dealt with before.

Erik_Lensherr

Besides the torture issue, the other problem I have is that the people are there without being charged with anything. If they have a reasonable reason to suspect them, they should be able to bring this reason to light, and if not, they shouldn't be there in the first place. The whole "we need to hold these people here for national security purposes but we don't really know what we suspect them of" is more than a little strange, in my view.

Its kinda sad that even though they didn't mean it like that, more people will think he did than not..... its kinda how the world works.

Oh well, hes also taking heat from McCains camp for the Pig comment, when McCain himself used it.

[QUOTE="Erik_Lensherr"]

Ah the old catch 22, I totally understand where you're coming from. But these people weren't just picked up because they look arabic. There is a good reason most are there. Also what kind of legal recourse would someone get that is not even a US citizen, you have to remember we are at WAR. With a faceless "country". This is not a cival case. I know there is potential for someone inoccent to get caught up in this but inoccent people get the wrong end of the law all the time( not that it makes it right). If this were US citizens (I know some are, very few) it would be different. We are talking about people that strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people in the name of god. If they don't care about there own lives and have no regard for humanity normal interrogation techniques have 0 chance to work. Like I alluded to before these are circumstances the civilized world has no dealt with before.

GabuEx

Besides the torture issue, the other problem I have is that the people are there without being charged with anything. If they have a reasonable reason to suspect them, they should be able to bring this reason to light, and if not, they shouldn't be there in the first place. The whole "we need to hold these people here for national security purposes but we don't really know what we suspect them of" is more than a little strange, in my view.

Both good arguments, it's weird I agree with them and at the same time I have to stick with what I believe. Good debating gents I'm gonna stop by those crazies in system wars then go home from work have a good night.

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.mysterylobster

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

I'm pretty sure Palin isn't running against Obama to be President. Maybe she should, she gets way more attention than McCain nowadays. I'm pretty sure Obama has called her worse things, I know I sure have. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be President. BTW watch the video of him saying that, he was talking about the Bush/McCain Policies, not Palin.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.nocoolnamejim

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

The comment was a direct response to Palin's joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull being "lipstick." When Obama just days later says, "You can put lipstick on a pig," it's clear that Palin was his target. It doesn't matter if it's an old phrase. In the political climate which it was uttered, the implied meaning is clear to anyone who doesn't immediately make excuses for this walking gaffe machine.

I do agree that it's depressing, but probably for different reasons. I'm afraid that with the help of the media, Obama will get away with attacks like this and his shameful attacks on McCain's computer skills (which he never learned because of wounds suffered for his country).

it's clear that Palin was his target.

mysterylobster

When Bill O'Reilly disagrees with the idea that a Democrat said something bad and calls that interpretation unfair, I think that it's stretching it to call that interpretation "clear".

Well thats campaigning for you. Considering McCain has had similar ads that weren't exactly true, lets just call it even.

I hate negative ads, but as long as they work they'll still be churning them out.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

it's clear that Palin was his target.

GabuEx

When Bill O'Reilly disagrees with the idea that a Democrat said something bad and calls that interpretation unfair, I think that it's stretching it to call that interpretation "clear".

Never listen to anything O'Reilly says. He's lost the respect of people on both sides with his lunatic ramblings.

Never listen to anything O'Reilly says. He's lost the respect of people on both sides with his lunatic ramblings.

mysterylobster

I'm just sayin', he's about the last person you'd expect to see sticking up for Obama, and I think that says something about the likelihood that these accusations are true.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

Never listen to anything O'Reilly says. He's lost the respect of people on both sides with his lunatic ramblings.

GabuEx

I'm just sayin', he's about the last person you'd expect to see sticking up for Obama, and I think that says something about the likelihood that these accusations are true.

Thats very weird.

Maybe he felt throwing a curveball would up his ratings? :?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.mysterylobster

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

The comment was a direct response to Palin's joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull being "lipstick." When Obama just days later says, "You can put lipstick on a pig," it's clear that Palin was his target. It doesn't matter if it's an old phrase. In the political climate which it was uttered, the implied meaning is clear to anyone who doesn't immediately make excuses for this walking gaffe machine.

I do agree that it's depressing, but probably for different reasons. I'm afraid that with the help of the media, Obama will get away with attacks like this and his shameful attacks on McCain's computer skills (which he never learned because of wounds suffered for his country).

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.killtactics

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

The comment was a direct response to Palin's joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull being "lipstick." When Obama just days later says, "You can put lipstick on a pig," it's clear that Palin was his target. It doesn't matter if it's an old phrase. In the political climate which it was uttered, the implied meaning is clear to anyone who doesn't immediately make excuses for this walking gaffe machine.

I do agree that it's depressing, but probably for different reasons. I'm afraid that with the help of the media, Obama will get away with attacks like this and his shameful attacks on McCain's computer skills (which he never learned because of wounds suffered for his country).

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.smokeydabear076

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

The comment was a direct response to Palin's joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull being "lipstick." When Obama just days later says, "You can put lipstick on a pig," it's clear that Palin was his target. It doesn't matter if it's an old phrase. In the political climate which it was uttered, the implied meaning is clear to anyone who doesn't immediately make excuses for this walking gaffe machine.

I do agree that it's depressing, but probably for different reasons. I'm afraid that with the help of the media, Obama will get away with attacks like this and his shameful attacks on McCain's computer skills (which he never learned because of wounds suffered for his country).

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]As embarressing and wrong as the ad was. It isn't intentionally making fun of disabled people. If that's true about Mccain, it was purely an error, not some spiteful hurtful attack, so don't make it sound like such.killtactics

We're talking about a man who called the woman running against him a pig.

The comment was a direct response to Palin's joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull being "lipstick." When Obama just days later says, "You can put lipstick on a pig," it's clear that Palin was his target. It doesn't matter if it's an old phrase. In the political climate which it was uttered, the implied meaning is clear to anyone who doesn't immediately make excuses for this walking gaffe machine.

I do agree that it's depressing, but probably for different reasons. I'm afraid that with the help of the media, Obama will get away with attacks like this and his shameful attacks on McCain's computer skills (which he never learned because of wounds suffered for his country).

Why would he intentionally call a women a "pig"? Its an old saying that just a while back John MaCain used him self to describe Hillary Clintons policies.... Just like Obama was doing it to describe John MaCains....
killtactics

As I said, the phrase itself isn't the problem, which is why there was no controversy when McCain used it. This is all about the proximity to Palin's own lipstick comment that turns this phrase into a nasty coded response.

Why would he do this? I don't understand Democrats' thinking all the time, but I do know that when they get stuck in a corner (and, yes, this Palin business has them sweating) they tend to go for the low blow. Remember four years ago when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter during a debate? The point he was making didn't require him to drag the VP's daughter into it; he just wanted to say, 'hey look, Cheney's daughter isn't straight.'

[QUOTE="killtactics"]Why would he intentionally call a women a "pig"? Its an old saying that just a while back John MaCain used him self to describe Hillary Clintons policies.... Just like Obama was doing it to describe John MaCains....
mysterylobster

As I said, the phrase itself isn't the problem, which is why there was no controversy when McCain used it. This is all about the proximity to Palin's own lipstick comment that turns this phrase into a nasty coded response.

Why would he do this? I don't understand Democrats' thinking all the time, but I do know that when they get stuck in a corner (and, yes, this Palin business has them sweating) they tend to go for the low blow. Remember four years ago when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter during a debate? The point he was making didn't require him to drag the VP's daughter into it; he just wanted to say, 'hey look, Cheney's daughter isn't straight.'

Also i find it strange that he would so casually decide to call one of his opponents a name... especially since he has never done it before, not only to McCain, but when he was fighting against the demarcates.

[QUOTE="killtactics"]Why would he intentionally call a women a "pig"? Its an old saying that just a while back John MaCain used him self to describe Hillary Clintons policies.... Just like Obama was doing it to describe John MaCains....
mysterylobster

As I said, the phrase itself isn't the problem, which is why there was no controversy when McCain used it. This is all about the proximity to Palin's own lipstick comment that turns this phrase into a nasty coded response.

Why would he do this? I don't understand Democrats' thinking all the time, but I do know that when they get stuck in a corner (and, yes, this Palin business has them sweating) they tend to go for the low blow. Remember four years ago when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter during a debate? The point he was making didn't require him to drag the VP's daughter into it; he just wanted to say, 'hey look, Cheney's daughter isn't straight.'

Or, perhaps he wasn't calling Sarah Palin a pig, and this entire thing in one huge attempt at a manufactured scandal, one which even the McCain campaign has stopped attempting to use.

Most of the world has already migrated onto that option. At the very least you have to admit the possibility that Obama did not mean it in the way you think he did and that its meaning was not "clear", considering the number of people who don't believe Obama was calling her a pig.

[QUOTE="killtactics"]Why would he intentionally call a women a "pig"? Its an old saying that just a while back John MaCain used him self to describe Hillary Clintons policies.... Just like Obama was doing it to describe John MaCains....
mysterylobster

As I said, the phrase itself isn't the problem, which is why there was no controversy when McCain used it. This is all about the proximity to Palin's own lipstick comment that turns this phrase into a nasty coded response.

Why would he do this? I don't understand Democrats' thinking all the time, but I do know that when they get stuck in a corner (and, yes, this Palin business has them sweating) they tend to go for the low blow. Remember four years ago when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter during a debate? The point he was making didn't require him to drag the VP's daughter into it; he just wanted to say, 'hey look, Cheney's daughter isn't straight.'

Yeah, the Democrats are the only ones who go for low blows. That's one of the most absurd statements I've heard in a long time. Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe the Democrats go for the low blows more than the Republicans... seriously?

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]Why would he intentionally call a women a "pig"? Its an old saying that just a while back John MaCain used him self to describe Hillary Clintons policies.... Just like Obama was doing it to describe John MaCains....
killtactics

As I said, the phrase itself isn't the problem, which is why there was no controversy when McCain used it. This is all about the proximity to Palin's own lipstick comment that turns this phrase into a nasty coded response.

Why would he do this? I don't understand Democrats' thinking all the time, but I do know that when they get stuck in a corner (and, yes, this Palin business has them sweating) they tend to go for the low blow. Remember four years ago when Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter during a debate? The point he was making didn't require him to drag the VP's daughter into it; he just wanted to say, 'hey look, Cheney's daughter isn't straight.'

Also i find it strange that he would so casually decide to call one of his opponents a name... especially since he has never done it before, not only to McCain, but when he was fighting against the demarcates.

I think they were hoping Palin and the Republicans would take great offense to it, just as McCain has been releasing incendiary ads to get people talking. It's kind of sad, but the American people want to see these guys trading blows more than hearing about issues.

As for Obama never calling names before, keep in mind that the tone of the campaign has changed. Desperation has set in now among the Democrats now that Palin has reenergized the base.

Yeah, the Democrats are the only ones who go for low blows. That's one of the most absurd statements I've heard in a long time. Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe the Democrats go for the low blows more than the Republicans... seriously?

I didn't say they were the only ones who go for low blows, only that it's something they resort to when in a desperate situation, like the one in which Obama now finds himself. i was trying to explain Obama's thinking here.

I didn't say they were the only ones who go for low blows, only that it's something they resort to when in a desperate situation, like the one in which Obama now finds himself. i was trying to explain Obama's thinking here.

mysterylobster

Sorry if I got upset there... and I understand what you mean. I just don't think the lipstick comment meant anything other than what it was supposed to mean(McCain is more of the same). I don't think out of all the people working on his campaign that they are so stupid as to intentionally and blatantly make a sexist comment like calling Palin a pig. Whether you like the democrats or not, they are probably a little bit smarter than that. And it's rather low of John McCain, the maverick, to use the typical "destract & lie" campaigning that he supposedly wants to change.

[QUOTE="bdever32"][QUOTE="Squall18"]

Haha, uhhhhh, Obama, uhhhhhh, he, uhhhhh, ......uhhh, umm,. He's a , uhhhh, good at quick, uhh, uh uh, comebacks.

*crowd goes wild. Lol, sorry, he's a great speaker, but thats how he talks without a teleprompter.

smokeydabear076

I don't see how you can think that's a bad thing... At least he doesn't sound like he's reading from notecards like Palin and McCain do. Did you watch the interview with Palin by Charles Gibson? She spouted out every response perfectly like she had been rehearsing them for days. At least it seems like Obama is thinking about what he's going to say.

General Joe:Mr. President you can call off the attack now, just give the confirmation.

Obama: Uhhh.....uuhh...I...will.....uh....now...uhhh...call... off..uh... the attack.. uh.

General Joe: Sorry Mr. President, you were just 2 seconds too late.

Obama: Uhhhh....Sorry..uh.