Wow. Nice word weaseling by Obama

[Tammarion]

He said calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's refusal to negotiate with rogue foreign leaders "Bush-Cheney lite" didn't cross the line. Clinton responded to that earlier comment by asking, "What's ever happened to the politics of hope?"

"The Clinton campaign reacted as, `Oh, whatever happened to the politics of hope. That's negative campaigning,'" Obama said. "If you actually look at the quote, I wasn't accusing her of being Bush."

What the hell? Sure, nobody accuses Bud Lite of being Bud, but if it tastes like U-Brew, you've got a problem.

This is the kind of verbal tapdance that made OMG Monica Blowjob so infuriating, and its already started? WTH...

[Boom]

He should admit it was negative and apologize. Or quit claiming that he won't do negative campaigning.

I like Obama a lot. But right is right and wrong is wrong.

He should get credit for the many times when he had an opportunity to do negative campaigning and chose not to, but this was clearly negative and he should be called on it.

Btw, my attitude is a perfect example of the why democrats lost control of the government from 2001-2006. When someone posts an example of a democrat doing something wrong, people like me say, "Yeah, that was wrong." When someone posts an example of a Repub doing something wrong, Repubs trip over themselves to defend it, or do the old, "Bah whatever, all politicians do that. Nothing to see here." I can link to dozens of examples in this forum and thousands of examples on conservative blogs.

Repubs treat this whole thing like a war, which is why they were winning for so long. If they were just smart enough to govern responsibly once they got into power, they could have kept control indefinitely.

Anyway, back on topic. I would love to defend Obama, because I like him, but I just can't help but look at his statements objectively and think he is playing games. Hopefully, this isn't a sign of things to come, but will be an isolated incident from a mostly non-negative campaign.

[Tammarion]

I'm not even against the negative campaigning. Its the flim-flam "I smoked weed, but I didn't inhale" crap - the smart people see through it and the dumb ones just smell something stinky. The neocons just close ranks and say "don't think too hard".

Obama doesn't even have to say hes sorry for the negative campaign - just say something like the GOP will do worse, and move on. I remember during the Dem primaries about how Kerry's anti-war stance couldn't be unpatriotic because of his war record. The Swift Boat thugs sunk that battleship. Do we really want to see a repeat of something like that in 2008?

Like it or not, negative campaigning works. Its like spam - everyone says they hate it, but someones buying the herbal viagra or they wouldn't waste their time spamming.

I look at it as just inexperience - he hasn't had to play full contact campaigning before and it shows.

[Allison]

I'm not sure what the problem is, actually. Technically, it's negative, because, well, he means it as a negative. But I don't think it's over the line. He's just saying that some of her foreign policy statements are closer to the Bush administration's than his own. It's not like he's comparing Clinton to the Nazis, or saying she's supports terrorists or anything inflammatory like that. It wasn't a personal attack. It wasn't below the belt. Why should he apologize?

[Bedpost]

Btw, my attitude is a perfect example of the why democrats lost control of the government from 2001-2006. When someone posts an example of a democrat doing something wrong, people like me say, "Yeah, that was wrong." When someone posts an example of a Repub doing something wrong, Repubs trip over themselves to defend it, or do the old, "Bah whatever, all politicians do that. Nothing to see here." I can link to dozens of examples in this forum and thousands of examples on conservative blogs.

No I don't think this is the reason the democrats lost control of the government.

I think it's more likely the case that they have your attitude of see look at me I'm saying a democrat is wrong. Do you really think that Republicans think. Who gives a crap when republican politicians do things wrong?

You could have just stated your opinion here and said that you think Obama is in the wrong. Instead you decided that you better get another jab in at all republicans because you think you can. Just like democrats did while they had control of the house and something went wrong. They would try to still blame it on the republicans

Go take a look at the approval ratings of congress right now. They are worse then the presidents... That's your lovely democrats in control right now to.

Republicans have sure stunk it up of late and had plenty of scandals. That doesn't mean every chance you get it's a good idea to throw all republicans under the bus, it gets old.

I have to agree with Allison here, I don't really think what he said was all that bad. If Hillary wants to take it that way, then that's her issue not Obama's

[Golmacmourna]

The *problem* is that he, like every other democrat is so horrible at politics, that their naivete and half-assed incompetence make them so ineffective that, regardless of their actual stated views, they're impossible to support!

The *correct* response to '*whine* politics of hope! I'm a *girl* whine!' is 'How can she support the politics of hope when she won't commit to even the most superficial promise to negotiate or attempt to negotiate? There can be no politics of hope if there is no hope in the heart of the politician. I say what I say because I cherish the hope that an honest appraisal of blah blah blah blah will result in blah blah and that a future committment to blah will blah. Though I was being glib, I blah blah, blah blah; this is a time for a serious committment to blah and I challenge Mrs. Clinton to blah blah.'

Shit, a republican wins this by not even *addressing* the *idea* that anything wrong happened. They say whatever they like, and then, when someone whines, they go back to rhetoric (always a solid choice) or develop an alchemical combination of 'we're good friends, but the threat is real; and the threat is lurking BEHIND YOU OH MY GOD! RUN!!!! AAAAH! haha, just kidding. Seriously though. You'll all die if you don't elect me.'

Democrats can't do that, because they're competing for the math club/chess club/science olympiad vote, which means alot of snotty verbal sparring. But even nerds hate the nasal, annoying, splitting-hairs bullshit argumentation that these people exercise. They *want* to hear sanctimonious West Wing dialogue, or Sports Night, or A Few Good Men when Tom cruise's clearly gay navy officer confronts jack nicholson over something so stupid and ridiculous that it is beyond belief--but still ends up making him look evil (with the help of dramatic music). God damn that sanctimonious asshole writer. I can't stand him.

Anyway. Allison, it's all about stepping correct. For real.

[Post]

The issue isn't him saying stuff "all that bad." The issue is that he's insinuated that he doesn't do that at all. If he wants to say he doesn't negative campaign, fine. If he wants to do a little negative campaigning, fine. He can't do both, though.

[Allison]

Seriously though, there's negative campaigning and then there's negative campaigning. When people talk about being tired of negative campaigns, they're talking about Bush being compared to Hitler, and Kerry being compared to a terrorist ... they're talking about fear-mongering and personal attacks and doom-and-gloom TV ads that imply "the other guy" will see to it that your daughters are raped and your pension funds destroyed. Saying "The other guy has a bad plan and mine is better," is definitely pointing out a negative, but it's not what I'd call negative campaigning.

There's absolutely nothing wrong in stating what you think is a negative about your opponent, so long as that's not your entire campaign, and so long as you're making a fair point. And I think he made a fair point. And I think Clinton knows it, because she responded with the ol' "I'm rubber and you're glue," distraction, to which he should have responded with "Baby, I'm so rubber you only wish you were half as rubbery as me." Golmac's right about that. Rookie response from Obama there. But at least he didn't apologize, which would have been an even bigger mistake, and I'm sure exactly what Clinton was hoping for.

[Tammarion]

Er not exactly. Negative campaigning in a nutshell is "vote for me, because the other guy is worse"

When you're campaigning on a platform of change, you have to go negative simply because otherwise, all you're doing is making promises.

Obama is tapping into all the Bush=Hitler stuff because hes running in the Dem primary - the language is already tilted - hes basically saying "why don't you run as a Republican" to Clinton. I'm pretty sure the MoveOn.Org people heard that message loud and clear.

The correct language is "same old failed policies of the past". And theres a slant going the other way - that this gaffe is even news is someone pegging Obama as someone who can't pick the right words ("Canadian President").

[Solomente]

Why is that negative campaigning? He compared Hillary to Bush and Cheney. What greater compliment can their be?!?!?!?!?!

[Post]

"Negative campaigning in a nutshell is "vote for me, because the other guy is worse"

Exactly. It's like positive and negative selling. If you're positive selling a product, you're telling about how great your product is. If you're negative selling, you're indirectly showing how great your product is by pointing out the flaws in another product. Whether or not you're comparing that product to Hitler, Cheney, or anyone else.

[Tammarion]

And its not a bad thing. I'm tired of politicans pretending that it is. If negative campaigning was forbidden, Hitler could run, because he wouldn't be Hitler, but Adolf, a humble austrian ex-painter. The Holocaust would just be the opponent dredging up old muck for that nasty negative campaigning.

[Allison]

If the only thing that bothers you is that Obama supposedly said that he wouldn't "go negative," then I think you're taking that to the extreme, which is what I was trying to highlight in my last post. I can't believe anyone would ever assume that a promise to not "go negative" would include never saying anything in the negative about your opponent. Hell, simply saying, "I disagree," is a negative. Should Obama apologize for every time he's said, "With all due respect, I think you're wrong?"

There is a huge difference between a negative campaign and a fair comment that happens to be negative.

[Tammarion]

But he'll jump in and say Clinton's comment is negative campaigning? Thats the problem - hes trying to score points by saying Clinton is negative, while he's lily pure.

"We both smoked, but she inhaled, and that makes my opponent a pot-head"

[Allison]

Yeah, uhm ... sorry, but I just can't wrap my brain around what you're saying, Tam. I've tried, but I just don't see it. From my pov, it's like you're saying someone is racist because he described someone else as being black. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But one comment does not a philosophy make.

As I said in post #8, to me, what makes a negative capaign is its overall tone, its focus ... is the candidate fair with his opponents or does he use fallacy and insinuation to unfairly smear them? By itself, a comment in the negative just doesn't equal negative campaigning to me.

Though I don't understand, I do see some of what you're saying ... that simply by invoking the names "Bush-Cheney" in relation to Clinton that Obama is somehow trying to buld a negative association in the minds of Democrats. Maybe he was. But it's still a fair and accurate comment, and by that standard ... my standard ... it's not negative campaigning. It's fair play. :)

[Post]

So hold on, just as long as it's an accurate statement, it's not negative campaigning?

[Golmacmourna]

[superhypothetical mode]
If the statements were only accurate and relevant, then no one would care about negative campaigning and the label wouldn't be in use, so, in a sense, it would not be negative campaigning.

if if if
[/superparenthetical mode]

[Allison]

So hold on, just as long as it's an accurate statement, it's not negative campaigning?

Not necessarily.

Pointing out that your opponent has a gay daughter may be an accurate statement, but it's clearly over the line. Saying that your opponent looks like a weasel may be accurate, but it's also over the line. So no, I would not say that accuracy, in and of itself, is a defense against negative campaigning.

But accuracy, fairness and relevance combined? Most likely, yes.

I'm not denying that what Obama said was meant as a negative. I think I said as much in my first post. What I'm saying is that one statement alone doesn't make a negative campaign. And I don't think that a promise, or an insinuation (or whatever it was he said that has everyone pointing fingers) to not run a negative campaign includes never being able to say anything negative about your opponent. I just don't see how it's reasonable to assume that.

[Post]

Then I guess you should use that standard across everyone, because most candidates are against that. Sure, they'll call Obama naive and inexperienced, but that doesn't fit under negative campaigning per your definition.

[Tammarion]

"The Clinton campaign reacted as, `Oh, whatever happened to the politics of hope. That's negative campaigning,'" Obama said.

Obama disagrees with Ally. :)

[Yoggoth]

the condensed version:
Obama- Clinton's foreign pollicy is bad
Clinton- Obama is a liar
Obama- I am not a liar and your foreign policy is still bad