PDA

View Full Version : Obama draws line in sand- McCain to take the bait?


tony hipchest
10-14-2008, 09:49 PM
no flames of passing judgement by me in this post. just casual observation and analysis-

this may ignite the spark to what have been rather lackluster debates so far this season. i dont know who dropped the "lack the guts" line first (aint gonna bother to research it), but this is a risky, daring, and possibly brilliant "knock out blow" strategy by the obama camp.

in recent days, mccain has seemed to back off the "terrorist" smear tactics of his recent campaign. he has even gone as far to say americans have nothing to fear with obama as prez (ouch).

this gives obama the opportunity to play the provocateur. its pretty obvious obamas got a pretty good debate lined up if mccain presses the issue and wishes to use his "material".

this gauntlet being thrown down leaves mccain with 2 options. stick with his recent softened stance (one that many prognosticators now think he must stick with to win) and appear "gutless", or to throw caution to the wind and take what obama obviously assumes will be an ass kicking of a rebuttal, he has had weeks to prepare for.

i see this as a potential curveball thrown in the mccain camps direction. do they focus on the economy, and the issues, or do they go on the attack. i see no reason why obama would "wake a sleeping dog" if he didnt feel he was well prepared like a harvard law student should be.

politics and "left vs. right" aside, i think things just got alot more juicy for the final debate. should be interesting and God forbid, entertaining. :danceshout:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/mccain-obama-pr.html

McCain to Obama: I Have 'Guts' to Bring Up Ayers
Email
Share October 14, 2008 12:11 PM

ABC News' Ron Claiborne, Teddy Davis, and Arnab Datta Report:

Speaking to a St. Louis radio station on Tuesday, John McCain said that Barack Obama's recent suggestion that McCain does not have guts to raise the Bill Ayers issue to his face "probably ensured" that the former Weather Underground leader will come up in Wednesday's final presidential debate.

"You have another debate coming up. The final debate. Many of your supporters are eager for you to confront Senator Obama on the Bill Ayers relationship in particular. Hillary Clinton even brought this up during the primary. Sen. Obama says you should have the guts to do it in person. So will you?" McCain was asked by KMOX's Mark Reardon.

"Oh yeah," said McCain. "You know, I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised for me to have the guts to do that. Because the fact is that the question did not come up in that fashion so--you know--I think he's probably ensured that it will come up this time."
Listen to McCain's KMOX radio interview here.

McCain's indignation was provoked by Obama telling ABC News' Charles Gibson last week that McCain was not willing to level the Ayers attack to his face.



-"This post is approved by tony hipchest and written on his own accord."

Preacher
10-14-2008, 10:02 PM
Yep..

I think it is court-room manuevering. Try to get him to say what you want him to say, but have it be in his own words, so that you can answer with the answer you came up with long before he asked the question.


The real trick... is if McCain can re-ask the question in a way that makes Obama's answer not click and thus, make him think on the spot. That creates an opportunity for a mistatement. On something that big, that could be dangerous.


I don't know myself, but being up in the polls by 5 points across the board, I would have left it alone myself. Much as Reagan put the age issue down in the second debate, and then completely left it alone after that. Never mess with a sleeping dog. You never know what may come up. 3 weeks is a LIFETIME in a political debate.

It should be interesting.

tony hipchest
10-14-2008, 10:29 PM
The real trick... is if McCain can re-ask the question in a way that makes Obama's answer not click and thus, make him think on the spot. That creates an opportunity for a mistatement. On something that big, that could be dangerous.
.

i say "good luck to mccain" on that.

all i know is that if i were a lawyer with a harvard education, this is a bull i'd be more than willing to grab by the horns as opposed to leaving it up to some schmucks i hired to prepare as a question, answer or rebuttal.

right now the ayers and wright thing might be the most "damning evidence" against obama (it seems that "no experience" has become old hat) and im sure its something obama is willing to take on all by himself, relying on his expertice.

this could play itself out like the battle of wits in "the princess bride".

Preacher
10-14-2008, 10:40 PM
i say "good luck to mccain" on that.

all i know is that if i were a lawyer with a harvard education, this is a bull i'd be more than willing to grab by the horns as opposed to leaving it up to some schmucks i hired to prepare as a question, answer or rebuttal.

right now the ayers and wright thing might be the most "damning evidence" against obama (it seems that "no experience" has become old hat) and im sure its something obama is willing to take on all by himself, relying on his expertice.

this could play itself out like the battle of wits in "the princess bride".

I don't know...

On that public a stage, it is always a dangerous thing to do, no matter who it is.

All it takes is one mistake. One curveball, and it can all start coming down. Remember when (I think it was Mondale) made the mistake of saying, "The difference between he and me is that I will tell you I am going to raise taxes."

A big oops.

It is however, all or nothing gambit. Either he hits it out of the park, or he strikes out and hopes 3 weeks comes quickly. I am just not sure why he would go there.

tony hipchest
10-14-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't know...

On that public a stage, it is always a dangerous thing to do, no matter who it is.

All it takes is one mistake. One curveball, and it can all start coming down. Remember when (I think it was Mondale) made the mistake of saying, "The difference between he and me is that I will tell you I am going to raise taxes."

A big oops.

It is however, all or nothing gambit. Either he hits it out of the park, or he strikes out and hopes 3 weeks comes quickly. I am just not sure why he would go there.i think obama is better equipped to handle this instance than mondale.

i think obama is alittle ticked off about having palin imply he is a terrorist, and having the GOP conventions associate him with sadaam hussien has got to piss him off.

lets keep in mind obama received his middle name 47 years ago, long before anyone on the world stage even knew who sadaam was. = refering to obama as "hussein" is as fear baiting as it gets.

this is obamas opportunity to strike. he has been playing it cool to this point and while mccains guard seems to be down, this seems like the opportune moment for a knock out blow.

i dont think a candidates middle name should influence anyones vote but it seems to be a tactic the GOP are playing on. after all reagans letters of his 3 names added up to 6-6-6. :hunch: turned out to mean nothing at all.

Blitzburgh_Fever
10-14-2008, 11:36 PM
I don't know...

On that public a stage, it is always a dangerous thing to do, no matter who it is.

All it takes is one mistake. One curveball, and it can all start coming down. Remember when (I think it was Mondale) made the mistake of saying, "The difference between he and me is that I will tell you I am going to raise taxes."

A big oops.

It is however, all or nothing gambit. Either he hits it out of the park, or he strikes out and hopes 3 weeks comes quickly. I am just not sure why he would go there.

As a potential Obama supporter, I'd have to agree. Three weeks is plenty of time for a ship to sink, even one ahead.

JPPT1974
10-15-2008, 01:36 AM
Sadly, it seems like curtains for McCain/Palin.

Preacher
10-15-2008, 02:13 AM
i think obama is better equipped to handle this instance than mondale.

i think obama is alittle ticked off about having palin imply he is a terrorist, and having the GOP conventions associate him with sadaam hussien has got to piss him off.

lets keep in mind obama received his middle name 47 years ago, long before anyone on the world stage even knew who sadaam was. = refering to obama as "hussein" is as fear baiting as it gets.

this is obamas opportunity to strike. he has been playing it cool to this point and while mccains guard seems to be down, this seems like the opportune moment for a knock out blow.

i dont think a candidates middle name should influence anyones vote but it seems to be a tactic the GOP are playing on. after all reagans letters of his 3 names added up to 6-6-6. :hunch: turned out to mean nothing at all.

Here is where we are going to disagree, and as a result, I am finished after this post, because I don't want to get back into partisan political discussions, which is where it seems you're driving this.

Associating McCain with Bush is fear baiting on economic terms. Period.
Associating Gore with Clinton morality wasn't fear baiting, but it was the same kind of guilt by association.

Clinton fear baited by talking about the "dark days ahead" for America in 2000.

Let us not forget the "world will crash down on us" fear-baiting of Bush in 2004.

_____

See a pattern?

That is why I really don't want to get into these discussions anymore, because I am sick of people trying to say their party is pure as the wind driven snow, and teh other party is dirty, ugly, low-down sneaks.

The further back I step from my personal political agenda, the more I see the same thing in both parties. It started in 1993 or 4 when I heard the GOP speaking about things that they lambasted the DNC for in the 80's, and the GOP getting lambasted by the DNC for things the DNC stood for in the 80's.

Then, it flipped again when Bush got into office.

In the end, there are two parties with well-defined agendas that are not that far apart. No matter the person that gets elected, it is those agenda's that ultimately will be trumpeted, or the person will be cut off at the knees. It is nothing personal, nor meaningful, it is the internal inertial of each party.

That is why I used to always vote Republican regardless of person, because I agreed with the platform and most of the individual planks in the platform. Therefore I didn't care who the face was, the platform was still being presented.

Now, the platform has changed in practice if not officially, which is why I am no longer a republican.

That is why I don't like this election cycle, because I really don't have a candidate to vote for.

I am voting for the candidate that I disagree the least with... not the one I agree the most with, and that is sad.

Mark my words, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of ex-Gop'ers that feel the same way.

Vis
10-15-2008, 05:29 AM
I agree that it is a set up but I don't agree that it is a big risk. MCcain has dropped from making the bs charges not from any Obama response. All Obama will need to do is act calm.

revefsreleets
10-15-2008, 11:11 AM
McCain needs to spend this whole debate seperating himself from Bush. He's failed in delivering this message, and he needs to pound it in tonight. There are a LOT of misleading ads characterizing McCain as Bush III and it's ridiculous. He has the record and new plans that are very different from what Bush offered, and he just needs to hammer, hammer, hammer away at that. Who cares what Obama says? Deliver your OWN message tonight, John...

stlrtruck
10-15-2008, 12:01 PM
It makes me think that now that Obama was the first to mention it, he's already sat down with his speech writers and has an alibi for his actions with Ayers and ACORN, therefore he's not too worried about the question.

Obama is a smooth talker and many people will buy into his answers for his past associations that have helped his political career - but that doesn't make it appropriate!!!

tony hipchest
10-15-2008, 12:15 PM
Stakes high as Obama, McCain head for final debate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate;_ylt=Ao0EeNeuWjx0hbJ3_YGPeCVg. 3QA

McCain has suggested that he is likely to bring up Obama's links to William Ayers, a radical during the Vietnam War era. Ayers was a member of the violent Weather Underground group but later became a university professor in Chicago and an expert on education. He and Obama both worked with some of the same charity foundations in Chicago, and Ayers hosted a reception for Obama when he first ran for the Illinois state Senate.

"We're always prepared for him to be hyperaggressive in his attacks," Obama campaign aide Robert Gibbs said of McCain. "I just think that doesn't work in an environment where so many people are concerned about the issues in front of them, not scare tactics they don't see as helping to pay the bills."
it seems to me the obama camp feels it is sitting on a pretty good rebuttal that can score some points and they are itching to use it.

i agree with revs on what mccainshould do. but what he should do and what he has been advised to do could be 2 different things.

the base wants him to take off the gloves. bad idea. the camp has given him bad advice in the past.

either way, i think its a bold and daring strategy by obama and kinda puts mccain on the spot. i think mccain feels compeled to bite and respond. (he shouldnt).

obama has intercepted the ball and goes into this debate on offense. i just think it adds a bit more drama and sizzle to what weve seen in all the other debates. we will see.

:popcorn:

Leftoverhard
10-15-2008, 12:28 PM
That is why I really don't want to get into these discussions anymore, because I am sick of people trying to say their party is pure as the wind driven snow, and teh other party is dirty, ugly, low-down sneaks.

Preacher - No one's saying that, I didn't see Tony say that, especially not here. Tony said that calling Obama by his inflammatory middle name is fear baiting and that Obama is probably going into this debate armed with some fire. I can't see how that's a partisan thing to say. I just can't. Especially for someone who doesn't belong to any party. Which brings me to:


Now, the platform has changed in practice if not officially, which is why I am no longer a ___________.

That is why I don't like this election cycle, because I really don't have a candidate to vote for.

I am voting for the candidate that I disagree the least with... not the one I agree the most with, and that is sad.

Mark my words, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of ex-____'ers that feel the same way.

Turn this into a certificate, hand it out to everyone in the US, fill in the blanks with Democrat, Republican, GOP, or DNC and you would probably have almost every American signing one of these in blood.
We need a viable system with more than 2 parties that *sort of* represent us. We need instant run-off voting so that our votes aren't used against us if our candidate doesn't have a chance but we would like to be able to voice our support.

tony hipchest
10-15-2008, 01:04 PM
yeah preacher, leftover hard is correct. you stated "I am just not sure why he would go there", and i offered up why i though obama would employ this strategy which seems much more aggressive than what he has shown to this point.

i made it clear, this post wasnt about specific policies and politics (past present or future) but the debate itself, and the styles and strategies the candidates will use.

it could be something, it could be nothing. it could be sizzle, it could be fizzle. it could be a huge misstep by obama and backfire in his face. it could be a risk with big reward and totally back mccain into a corner he dont want to be in.

or it can be anywhere in between. :noidea:

lets not turn this into anything more than it is. its a simple civil discussion on campaign strategies. i fing debating the strategies much more interesting than the issues themselves, cause after all its strategical.

didnt everyone love playing strategy games as a kid?

Preacher
10-15-2008, 01:52 PM
yeah preacher, leftover hard is correct. you stated "I am just not sure why he would go there", and i offered up why i though obama would employ this strategy which seems much more aggressive than what he has shown to this point.

i made it clear, this post wasnt about specific policies and politics (past present or future) but the debate itself, and the styles and strategies the candidates will use.

it could be something, it could be nothing. it could be sizzle, it could be fizzle. it could be a huge misstep by obama and backfire in his face. it could be a risk with big reward and totally back mccain into a corner he dont want to be in.

or it can be anywhere in between. :noidea:

lets not turn this into anything more than it is. its a simple civil discussion on campaign strategies. i fing debating the strategies much more interesting than the issues themselves, cause after all its strategical.

didnt everyone love playing strategy games as a kid?

I was reacting to the point that a few of your statements are based on subjective critiques which are biased by the support of a candidate.

refering to obama as "hussein" is as fear baiting as it gets.
Is a politically biased comment, as I would say referring to McCain as a clone of Bush, or McSame is driving fear, especially when certain elements within the democrat party try to paint Bush as a evil, right infringing, money grabbing fool.
It is all perspective.

palin imply he is a terrorist,
Is also quite based on perspective, as most on the right would say she didn't imply he was a terrorist, but questioned his wisdom in assoiciating with people who were known domestic terrorists in the past. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the PERSPECTIVE of the right, just like the PERSPECTIVE on the left is that she WAS implying he was a terrorist.

Like I said, what I was reacting to is the fact that perspectives are thought to be reality. It leaves me in a quandry, because Tony, I know you are very smart, which leads me to beleive that you knew what you were posting and trying to "slip one in".

Forgive me if I am wrong. I hope I am.

tony hipchest
10-15-2008, 02:14 PM
you are forgiven. :chuckle:

Preacher
10-15-2008, 02:17 PM
you are forgiven. :chuckle:

Only in your perspective...

Mosca
10-15-2008, 02:28 PM
My debate prediction:

Boring, nothing new, no fireworks. Even if McCain brings up Ayers, Obama won't do anything more than use it as an opportunity to defuse the charge; he won't go on the attack.

This has been like a tennis match between a net charger and a baseliner. All Obama has to do is play defense, hit the ball back over the net, and let McCain make the mistakes. The ONLY thing Obama can do that won't benefit him is charge the net; as long as he continues to hit the ball back, he's doing what he needs to.

Leftoverhard
10-15-2008, 03:15 PM
or it can be anywhere in between. :noidea:



If I had to bet, this would be a safe one. Not expecting fireworks from anyone. It would be more interesting but I don't think anyone has the nads at this point.

Preacher
10-15-2008, 04:21 PM
Leftover,

As sad as it is to say this, a multi party system, i think, would be even worse. Because of how our government is set up, could you imagine the dealings in teh house and senate?

"psst. If you vote to block this, we will work to funnel 200 million to that new park in your district."


What I think needs to happen, is a revolution in both parties... much like the Whigs becoming the Republicans.

revefsreleets
10-15-2008, 06:26 PM
If McCain WERE to bring it up, the only tack that might work would be to contrast the Presidency against all the other government jobs Obama would no longer be eligible to hold due to his associations over the years, like FBI, CIA, etc, etc...

Preacher
10-15-2008, 06:31 PM
If McCain WERE to bring it up, the only tack that might work would be to contrast the Presidency against all the other government jobs Obama would no longer be eligible to hold due to his associations over the years, like FBI, CIA, etc, etc...

True,

but that tact I think has been made invalid by Clinton being president.

his trip to the USSR in 1969 would have made him ineligible for security clearances I believe. So i don't know if not being able to get one would hold water.

revefsreleets
10-15-2008, 06:36 PM
Who paid for Obama's trips around the globe?

The one after college, not all the trips he took when he was in the Senate...I know the taxpayers financed those trips.