Obama up 8 points

[Kirnwaffen]

You talk about "retarded" arguments and some great "backfire" when McCain's new message is that Obama is buddies with a terrorist. It really doesn't get any more idiotic or objectionable than that. But that doesn't mean that argument won't have any resonance with the voters.

And the key to Keating is the pivot to regulation. McCain was caught pressuring financial regulators on behalf of Keating. This can be tied into a narrative about a historical antipathy to regulation.

You keep defending Obama's decision to go negative by saying that McCain is doing it too. Well here you go: I don't think going negative is McCain's best move either. The fact is that there just isn't a lot of up side in it for Obama. His message is working right now, without Keating Five. Why risk tarnishing it? Keating Five adds nothing to the conversation.

[Zkribbler]

The upside in bringing up Keating is that it's motivation for McCain to stop slinging mud and to get back to the issues.

[Ramo]

I disagree on both counts. Or more precisely, McCain's Ayers/Rezko argument is only effective if it isn't fought back on similar terms. The basic issue is that the media doesn't believe in being an arbiter. So they'd report the McCain spin on Ayers and then the Obama spin on Ayers, and pat themselves on the back as a job well done (meaning a net negative for Obama, absent a significant press backlash). What Keating does is hit at McCain in a similar way that McCain hits at Obama (minimizing the damage these arguments do), and he gets a pivot back to the issues where he's favored.

[Kirnwaffen]

Why do you think it's necessary to fight mud with mud? If Obama defends on Ayers/Rezko and pivots back to the issues without using Keating Five, he actually walks away looking like a grown up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The 'pivot to regulation' probably won't work either because McCain, as said, has been very open about that time in his life and basically learned his lesson and became a crusader... what it will do is allow McCain to talk about one of the more powerful stories of his bio.

He can't be a crusader because of his past. That only works in religion where you have Jebus to wash your filthy sins away. Everytime McCain attacks Obama he will bring up the fact that McCain has no right to talk. It's a double attack on McCain.

[Ramo]

Why do you think it's necessary to fight mud with mud?

Because we're talking about American politics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The upside in bringing up Keating is that it's motivation for McCain to stop slinging mud and to get back to the issues.

You kidding? I mean do the Obama supporters in this thread not read the polls?

McCain is down by 8 points with a month to go. He's throwing everything against the wall to see if anything can stick. When Obama campaign said it was desperate, he was correct. However, when you say that, you don't start acting in similar ways! It diffuses the desperate charge entirely!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Why do you think it's necessary to fight mud with mud? If Obama defends on Ayers/Rezko and pivots back to the issues without using Keating Five, he actually walks away looking like a grown up.

Yep... and he diffuses the McCain attacks, while keeping his massive lead and looking "Presidential" to boot.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yep... and he diffuses the McCain attacks, while keeping his massive lead and looking "Presidential" to boot.

Bah. You lack the subtle hypocracy of a politician. I suggest the following language for Barack:

Sen. McCain is trying to distract you, bringing up the acts by someone else which happened when I was eight. I could resort to that level by pointing out that at around that same time, McCain was hauled before the Senate Ethics Committee for his actions in intervening with regulators on behalf of John Keating, who was later convicted of carrying out the largest banking fraud of time. But I won't.
I'm here to talk about today. Today's unemployment. Today's foreclosures. Today's falling stockmarket. John McCain doesn't want to talk about these because he has nothing to say.

...hee hee hee...saying I could throw mud by saying [x], but I won't say [x].

[Guynemer]

Imran is right. Obama needn't go on the offensive with attacks, but he does need to show exactly how and why McCain's attacks are bogus.

Two polls out today show Obama with a 10+ lead in Virginia, for God's sake. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suggest the following language for Barack

That is so incredibly unsubtle and obvious, it is amazing.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


No, they didn't. They were put into conservatorship on September 7th, the same day as that 538.com post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...nd_Freddie_Mac

Wrong. Their stock price had dropped 90% through 2008, but August 20th, the same day Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd basically said "Don't worry, be happy" it dropped 27% off its already-dismal price.

[GePap]

At this point, being negative isn't going to hurt Obama anymore than it will help McCain.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Guynemer
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This is a competition. They've got to play their best game until it's over. You can't sit on a lead.

[Jon Miller]

I know plenty of people who don't think that Obama is really to be trusted, as part of america. It could very well be that this is racism... but still, it is there. People who are fighting this inclination might have their minds changed by McCain's attacks.

JM