This was not a mean campaign and people need to stop complaining that it was. It was tough the way campaigns always are, but it was not meaner than normal.
I thought it was pretty good. There was some nasty rhetoric from Palin near the end, but it could have been a lot worse. The mud from Obama (yes, there was a fair bit) was mostly policy-based, and mostly accurate, at least in broad strokes. The McCain stuff was disappointing in that much of it came directly from the mouth of the candidate, rather than from surrogates, as is traditional, but was a pale shadow of swift-boatings past.
I think it helped that Obama didn't give them much grist for the mill.
He wasn't as mockable as Kerry or Gore, and made almost no mistakes, and had very little in his background that could be used against him. I think the race issue helped keep much of the stuff clean. Whether that's a testament to McCain's integrity or the tactical skill of his advisors, knowing that it would backlash -- probably both -- it should be acknowledged.
The fringe stuff (muslim, etc) was pretty galling, so to me the campaign *felt* nasty, but it's important to recognize that it was not representative of the campaigns themselves. Still, it remains troubling that a sizable proportion of the republican electorate actually believed that Obama is a muslim.
I would rank this campaign "better" than 2004, 2000, 1988, and "worse" than 1996. 1992 was just weird, and I don't personally remember previous campaigns well enough to rate them.
I call BS. Just because it wasn't "meaner than normal" does not make it not mean. I'm all for disagreement. If our candidates all agreed, then we could toss a coin and move on. It is imperative for candidates to point out their differences with each other. But the tone of political discourse is mean and it should not have to be. It is probably no meaner than at other times (see all the talk about a "Lincoln Cabinet", but that doesn't make it the right way to discuss political differences.
I disagree 100 %. The VP accused the Pres candidate and sitting US senator of hating america and being a terrorist. How in the hell can you say that the attacks on kerry by serrogates were worse? I'm sorry, but the charges leveled against Obama were more serious than any we've seen. Much more serious than weak on crime or father of an illegitimate child. Also, they didn't come from the fringe, they came from the opposing camp campaign.
The good guy won. Hope beat fear and so you remember it as being less ungly; but it was very, very ugly. They stuck by pals around with terrorist. Please provide a more serious charge.
Jefferson called Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character".
Adams called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
Andrew Jackson called John Q. Adams a pimp, and Adams in turn called Mrs. Jackson a slut. Literally a slut.
A newspaper wrote the following:
"General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"
Democratic newspapers referred to Abraham Lincoln "Honest Ape".
Rutherford B Hayes called Samuel Tilden "an alcoholic, syphilitic con artist". Tilden responded that Hayes was "so venal he robbed corpses on the battlefield during the Civil War and once shot a gun at his own mother".
When Aaron Burr was running for governor of New York, Alexander Hamilton blasted him in an editorial and the two dueled. Hamilton was killed. So... in a duel over a gubernatorial campaign U.S. Secretary of Treasury was shot to death.
So... "pals around with terrorists" and shot to death.
"Syphilitic." Awesome! I mean, really, so freaking awesome. That's going to become a standard insult for me now.
'Course most of the examples you provided were eighteenth and nineteenth century, so it's hard to compare eras. It doesn't take away any of their AWESOMENESS.
I think McCain's damage to his own character had less to do with the nature of the poo he flung than with the fact hat a) he did it himself and b) he previously maintained a reputation for integrity and honor. So we now know he's a craven hypocrite who's willing to say anything to win the white house.
I guess the reason I am (in retrospect) a little less offended this year compared to 2004 and 2000, is that the BS was pretty over-the-top unbelievable, and as a result, it didn't work. They made Kerry a laughingstock -- a genuine war hero, and they wore purple heart bandaids. And it worked. I dunno which is worse, but it galls a lot more when you lose.
As for Palin, I think she was less a pitbull with lipstick than Limbaugh in a skirt. The stuff she said has been standard fare on right wing talk radio for years -- Liberals Hate America, you know. So it was nasty, but the only new thing about it is it came from Palin's own mouth and not from the VRWC alone.
None of the rest beats out calling a candidate a terrorist while we are still fighting two wars spawned by the 9/11 attacks. The "Who's the Real Obama" campaign was intended to cause racist to believe he was dangerous and willing to destroy the country.
This [[Adams called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."]] is what I was talking about in my post when I referred to fathering an illegitimate child. How is that possibly more mean spirited than suggesting the man was a terrorist?
A significant part of the Republican campaign this year, from the candidate mind you, was to cause Americans to believe the opponent was a terrorist.
Sorry, "hideous hermaphroditical character" with neither the gentility of a woman or the strength of a man is not the same as saying someone is like the people who just killed 3000 Americans.
And in recent history? Forget about it. Liam, you're right. It didn't work, so we brush it off. That's fine. But this was the most vicious attack any person running for president has endured in our lifetimes.
6 comments:
I thought it was pretty good. There was some nasty rhetoric from Palin near the end, but it could have been a lot worse. The mud from Obama (yes, there was a fair bit) was mostly policy-based, and mostly accurate, at least in broad strokes. The McCain stuff was disappointing in that much of it came directly from the mouth of the candidate, rather than from surrogates, as is traditional, but was a pale shadow of swift-boatings past.
I think it helped that Obama didn't give them much grist for the mill.
He wasn't as mockable as Kerry or Gore, and made almost no mistakes, and had very little in his background that could be used against him. I think the race issue helped keep much of the stuff clean. Whether that's a testament to McCain's integrity or the tactical skill of his advisors, knowing that it would backlash -- probably both -- it should be acknowledged.
The fringe stuff (muslim, etc) was pretty galling, so to me the campaign *felt* nasty, but it's important to recognize that it was not representative of the campaigns themselves. Still, it remains troubling that a sizable proportion of the republican electorate actually believed that Obama is a muslim.
I would rank this campaign "better" than 2004, 2000, 1988, and "worse" than 1996. 1992 was just weird, and I don't personally remember previous campaigns well enough to rate them.
I call BS. Just because it wasn't "meaner than normal" does not make it not mean. I'm all for disagreement. If our candidates all agreed, then we could toss a coin and move on. It is imperative for candidates to point out their differences with each other. But the tone of political discourse is mean and it should not have to be. It is probably no meaner than at other times (see all the talk about a "Lincoln Cabinet", but that doesn't make it the right way to discuss political differences.
I disagree 100 %. The VP accused the Pres candidate and sitting US senator of hating america and being a terrorist. How in the hell can you say that the attacks on kerry by serrogates were worse? I'm sorry, but the charges leveled against Obama were more serious than any we've seen. Much more serious than weak on crime or father of an illegitimate child. Also, they didn't come from the fringe, they came from the opposing camp campaign.
The good guy won. Hope beat fear and so you remember it as being less ungly; but it was very, very ugly. They stuck by pals around with terrorist. Please provide a more serious charge.
Jefferson called Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character".
Adams called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
Andrew Jackson called John Q. Adams a pimp, and Adams in turn called Mrs. Jackson a slut. Literally a slut.
A newspaper wrote the following:
"General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"
Democratic newspapers referred to Abraham Lincoln "Honest Ape".
Rutherford B Hayes called Samuel Tilden "an alcoholic, syphilitic con artist". Tilden responded that Hayes was "so venal he robbed corpses on the battlefield during the Civil War and once shot a gun at his own mother".
When Aaron Burr was running for governor of New York, Alexander Hamilton blasted him in an editorial and the two dueled. Hamilton was killed. So... in a duel over a gubernatorial campaign U.S. Secretary of Treasury was shot to death.
So... "pals around with terrorists" and shot to death.
Shot to death wins.
"Syphilitic." Awesome! I mean, really, so freaking awesome. That's going to become a standard insult for me now.
'Course most of the examples you provided were eighteenth and nineteenth century, so it's hard to compare eras. It doesn't take away any of their AWESOMENESS.
I think McCain's damage to his own character had less to do with the nature of the poo he flung than with the fact hat a) he did it himself and b) he previously maintained a reputation for integrity and honor. So we now know he's a craven hypocrite who's willing to say anything to win the white house.
I guess the reason I am (in retrospect) a little less offended this year compared to 2004 and 2000, is that the BS was pretty over-the-top unbelievable, and as a result, it didn't work. They made Kerry a laughingstock -- a genuine war hero, and they wore purple heart bandaids. And it worked. I dunno which is worse, but it galls a lot more when you lose.
As for Palin, I think she was less a pitbull with lipstick than Limbaugh in a skirt. The stuff she said has been standard fare on right wing talk radio for years -- Liberals Hate America, you know. So it was nasty, but the only new thing about it is it came from Palin's own mouth and not from the VRWC alone.
Shot to death wins.
None of the rest beats out calling a candidate a terrorist while we are still fighting two wars spawned by the 9/11 attacks. The "Who's the Real Obama" campaign was intended to cause racist to believe he was dangerous and willing to destroy the country.
This [[Adams called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."]] is what I was talking about in my post when I referred to fathering an illegitimate child. How is that possibly more mean spirited than suggesting the man was a terrorist?
A significant part of the Republican campaign this year, from the candidate mind you, was to cause Americans to believe the opponent was a terrorist.
Sorry, "hideous hermaphroditical character" with neither the gentility of a woman or the strength of a man is not the same as saying someone is like the people who just killed 3000 Americans.
And in recent history? Forget about it. Liam, you're right. It didn't work, so we brush it off. That's fine. But this was the most vicious attack any person running for president has endured in our lifetimes.
Post a Comment