The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Faramond]

Oh, I'm sorry, Faramond, my thoughts and typing fingers were wandering and I lost track of where I was and who I was responding to. I guess my point was that everyone is freaking out about what the man MIGHT do and he's not even the official candidate yet. That's all.

Well, people freak out ( or are concerned ) about what McCain might do as president, and he's not even the most likely to be elected. And Obama is all but the official candidate.

( I wasn't sure where to put that so it goes here! )

We'll see what happens.

[Cerin]

I heard it pointed out that everytime the Republicans attack Obama, they will be giving him the opportunity to show that he can indeed be a 'fighter', and thus minimize one of his perceived vulnerabilities. It should be interesting to see them try to calculate that one to their advantage.

edit

But it struck me that the most important thing about Obama's response, was that he didn't just or primarily address the actual charges; he also talked about the intent and technique behind the attack (i.e., they're trying to scare you, they're trying to divert you because they can't win an argument based on the real issues). If he keeps doing that, he'll not only be refuting the lies, but he'll be addressing and exposing the larger question of the invidious techniques used by this administration and its cohorts in the last eight years. It would be huge to bring an awareness and discussion of that into the national dialogue!



Regarding Huckabee, I think he destroyed in one stroke the image and attendant potential benefits he spent all that campaign time building up. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I heard it pointed out that everytime the Republicans attack Obama, they will be giving him the opportunity to show that he can indeed be a 'fighter', and thus minimize one of his perceived vulnerabilities. It should be interesting to see them try to calculate that one to their advantage.

Of course, the flip side of that is that the more Obama bickers with the Republicans, the harder it will be for him to present himself as the candidate that will end partisanship bickering! It will be interesting to see him try to calculate that one to his advantage (assuming, of course, that he is the nominee).

Regarding Huckabee, I think he destroyed in one stroke the image and attendant potential benefits he spent all that campaign time building up. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

I agree.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, McCain may have hurt himself by characterizing Obama's response as a "hysterical diatribe." Anyone who cares to can go online and watch it, and see that it was no such thing (I have).

That's another symptom of a candidate/campaign that haven't really grasped how news works now. Even a few years ago it might have worked for McCain to frame Obama as "hysterical," because all chance to see the speech itself would have passed when he did so. McCain could build the framing into "received truth" just by repeating it.

These days, not so much. I hope for McCain's sake that he and his staff figure this out soon, and that it does not do to issue denials that you said something when the clips are there on YouTube.

I'm happy that Obama and his campaign are so Net-savvy. In the final analysis that may the the advantage that elects him, if he is elected.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, McCain may have hurt himself by characterizing Obama's response as a "hysterical diatribe." Anyone who cares to can go online and watch it, and see that it was no such thing (I have).

Some people will take McCain's word for it. But most of those probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

I'm happy that Obama and his campaign are so Net-savvy. In the final analysis that may the the advantage that elects him, if he is elected.

Oh, he'll be elected.

[Primula Baggins]

I think so, too, Voronwë, but if I were backing another candidate I might find that certainty kind of repressive if it were expressed too often.

[Cerin]

Of course, the flip side of that is that the more Obama bickers with the Republicans, the harder it will be for him to present himself as the candidate that will end partisanship bickering!

I don't know about that. Campaigning isn't the same thing as legislating, and I don't think people view it as such. A general campaign is essentially a long-term, formally agreed upon period of partisanship bickering. Bickering, in this context, is making your case. I don't think people expect Obama to either refrain from making his case or charm McCain into being quiet.

Well, McCain may have hurt himself by characterizing Obama's response as a "hysterical diatribe."

Yes, that bit of extravagant hyperbole is far more hysterical than anything Obama said. I also noticed that McCain started employing a standard tactic from the dirty play book, refuting something Obama never said so as to establish a false idea in people's minds that he thinks it. It was something like, 'If Sen. Obama thinks we have no enemies, then the American people are right to be concerned about his leadership, etc.". Of course, Obama never said and doesn't think we have no enemies.

I wish the campaign had a group of people assigned to keep track of and calmly refute every little lie of that kind, and then they could publish them all together at some point. Or perhaps someone will make a clever video showing McCain claiming hysteria and then showing Obama calmly making his points in response.

[River]

They might. They're tech savvy enough.

There's also the Truth-o-meter. They have a hard time keeping up, but they're valuable when they do.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[yovargas]

This thread is so much more awesome when people put some genuine effort into both expressing and listening to opposing views.

Saying that mostly because I really appreciated the thoughtful and even-toned posts from nel and hal on the tax issues as well the thoughtful and even-toned responses they got. It's so much more interesting to talk to each other than to talk at each other. (I'm sure I'm plenty guilty of the latter too but I'm trying!!!)


Btw, I don't think anyone answered Cerin: "strawmen" are when you start arguing against something your opponent never said they supported. Your "27th Lexus or stained glass windows for their eighth mansion" was a strawman because, instead of directly addressing the arguments of the opposing views, you inserted a position into the discussion your opposition never claimed to have (we were mostly talking about people with 6-digit incomes at that point not a handful of billionaires) and started attacking that. Mostly this happens when people start arguing against positions they imagine the other person stated, instead of what they actually stated. My favorite recent example was when sol argued "US healthcare is better than UK healthcare" and several people responded to him by arguing "US healthcare isn't the best" when he'd never stated that he thought it was.

[Cerin]

Your "27th Lexus or stained glass windows for their eighth mansion" was a strawman because, instead of directly addressing the arguments of the opposing views, you inserted a position into the discussion your opposition never claimed to have (we were mostly talking about people with 6-digit incomes at that point not a handful of billionaires) and started attacking that.

Thanks, yov.

You are correct in saying I didn't directly address the arguments of the opposing view, because that wasn't my intent. I also did not intend to attribute my example (27th Lexus) to anyone else in the larger discussion, or use it as an attacking point in the argument. My example was simply offered in an attempt to explain to hal, who specifically asked, what I meant by 'material difference', and that's why it was extreme. It is sometimes easier to show what one means by using an extreme example, and I don't think doing that necessarily distorts the underlying principle one is trying to get at.

I think that I sort of understand why the '27th Lexus' would have been viewed as a strawman, and why it would have been one if I'd tried to actively engage with that example as part of the larger argument. I still don't feel I have a firm grasp of the concept, but I do appreciate you taking the trouble to explain!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think so, too, Voronwë, but if I were backing another candidate I might find that certainty kind of repressive if it were expressed too often.

True enough, Prim. I'll restrain myself in the future.

In fact, I think I am going to try to withdraw from these discussions altogether. I have more than said my piece over the past year. Time to let others express their views.

[Frelga]

Of course, the flip side of that is that the more Obama bickers with the Republicans, the harder it will be for him to present himself as the candidate that will end partisanship bickering!

I don't know about that. Campaigning isn't the same thing as legislating, and I don't think people view it as such. A general campaign is essentially a long-term, formally agreed upon period of partisanship bickering. Bickering, in this context, is making your case. I don't think people expect Obama to either refrain from making his case or charm McCain into being quiet.

I agree with Cerin. Making the other side look bad is part and parcel of campaigning. Meat and bread of it. It's the how that counts, and so far Obama has shown himself to be a consistent class act.

I remember after Democrats regained Congress, Dave Ross played several campaign clips on his radio commentary. The Republican candidate ripped into his opponent, using the word "terrorist" umpteen times and other nasty words, too. Then he played that same candidate's concession speech, in which he congratulated the worthy winner on his well-deserved victory.

It was that, Ross said, that makes this country great. People vote the old government out, and the old government just goes away. There aren't tanks rolling in the next day, no masked gunmen patrolling the streets. All it takes is a vote.

ETA: V, right, 'cause the rest of us have been so timid and quiet in this thread. Don't try to play possum now.

[Primula Baggins]

Jn, connection speed is going to be a vital issue sooner rather than later. Even now people without broadband are at a serious disadvantage. I'm hoping that a President Obama would encourage the wide expansion of wireless broadband, with private or public programs to subsidize it for lower-income people.

My city has long had a private nonprofit ISP that provides free service to people who can't afford monthly fees—they support themselves by charging everyone else, of course. Within a community it's a good model.

[yovargas]

That'd be silly, V-man. You regularly bring in some of the most interesting info and updates into the thread.

[Primula Baggins]

yov's right, Voronwë. Please don't withdraw. You are a calm, reasonable, informative presence in a thread that sometimes gets heated and volatile. It would not be better off without you, not at all.

[Ethel]

I see a connection between McCain's "hysterical diatribe" remark and Huckabee's unfortunate joke at the NRA convention: "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he -- he dove for the floor."

I think they are both attempts to paint Democrats in general and Obama in particular as--in Governor Schwarzenegger's phrase--"girlie-men".

Obama's response to Bush's Knesset remarks was anything but hysterical, as anyone who watched it will know. But the word hysterical has--I don't know--PMS overtones, I guess. Huckabee's joke suggested that Obama was so frightened by seeing a gun that he fell on the floor. (Didn't it?) I take it the implication is that a "real" man would react differently.

This despite the fact that Huckabee used the phrase "aimed a gun at him"--wouldn't diving for the floor be a reasonable and not laughable response in that situation?

I've always kind of liked Huckabee, and I'd like to believe he simply spoke without thinking.

[Cerin]

Huckabee's joke suggested that Obama was so frightened by seeing a gun that he fell on the floor. (Didn't it?)

That was my impression. With I thought possibly the added implication that he was so frightened because guns are so foreign to him (as opposed to the good ol' boys who take target practice or go hunting every weekend). And maybe that he's cowardly (you know, too much a of sissy to bomb Iran).

I think that's a good point about the girlie-man stuff. I do recall something somewhere recently in a comic venue, that riffed off of Obama being pretty like a girl.

We're in for a long season.

[solicitr]

Okay, Cerin, let's set your

For the person whose refund would enable them to buy a 27th Lexus or stained glass windows for their eighth mansion, I don't consider that their refund makes a material difference.

Alongside your

I'm going to start calling you everytime you pull this stuff, solicitr, because I'm sick of it.

Here you are employing one of your common tactics, spouting nonsense framed in the form of a reply, so as to suggest that the person actually said the stupid thing you are ostensibly 'refuting'.

[Cerin]

And?

Let me make it perfectly clear, that I in no way attributed that idea to anyone else. That was my idea, to try and explain to halplm what I meant by 'material difference'.

That is not the technique you used, which tried to imply that I had put forth the idea that rich people are inferior and undeserving.

edit

Allow me to continue.

It is not nonsense, to suggest that there are people so rich that they are able to own 27 cars and eight mansions.

It is nonsense to suggest that someone not needing something means they are inferior and undeserving.

edit


Allow me to continue.

You have just helpfully illustrated another in your frequently used compendium of fraudulent posting techniques, namely, laying down a drive-by snipe that implies something false while neglecting to back it up with an explanation. Let's give them names. We have two, so far:

1. Refuting a stupidity no one actually proposed -- Presenting an idea no one has suggested, framed as a response to a person representing the opposing viewpoint, so as to suggest that the suggested stupidity is actually an idea advocated by the opposing camp.

2. The Drive-by Implied Falsehood - Laying down a drive-by snipe that implies something false while refusing to back it up with an explanation.

edit

And now, regrettably, I must absent myself, so any further cleverly implied falsehoods will have to await exposure until later. Unless, of course, someone else is inclined to take up this charming pursuit.