TenuredVulture wrote:Well, earlier in the day you were liberal, but then buddy put us in the small conservative minority. So, rather than flip-flopping, I am proud to admit I was wrong. Happens all the time.

SEE! You're doing it right now!

WilliamC wrote:I can honestly say that if I was a Democrat and and that was a Republican ad I would still say that it was one of the dumbest ads I've ever seen.

Most Presidential ads are pretty dumb, including McCain's but that just is a big "WHAT THE HELL?".

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but I don't think it's remotely a "WTF" for anyone who almost literally is counting the days till Jan. 20, 2009.

For those of us who almost couldn't believe this nightmare of a presidency actually would end, the idea that the successor might be this smart, cool, decent likeable guy - it almost seems to good to be true. Nonetheless, when I really let myself think about an Obama presidency - and what a sea-change I think that would bring in policy and in thought - hope is exactly what I feel.

And I haven't felt hopeful politically since before 9/11, other than maybe a few hours of election day 2006 and walking out of a screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004 certain Bush was going to lose.

I can't imagine any American politician since Hoover has caused as much gloom, killed off as much hope, as the Bush/Cheney amalgamation. Maybe Nixon at times - I was a kid then.

BuddyGroom wrote:

WilliamC wrote:I can honestly say that if I was a Democrat and and that was a Republican ad I would still say that it was one of the dumbest ads I've ever seen.

Most Presidential ads are pretty dumb, including McCain's but that just is a big "WHAT THE HELL?".

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but I don't think it's remotely a "WTF" for anyone who almost literally is counting the days till Jan. 20, 2009.

But those people are already voting for Obama.

It would have been more powerful if they would have taken a hammer and crushed the baby bird and said "This is what happens to the country when you vote Republican".

jerseyhoya wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:Hmm, I first saw that months ago - and I love it.

Just because our small conservative minority on this board hates that ad doesn't mean it's bad. I laughed the first time I saw it and I think anyone who hates/detests/fears Bush/Cheney will get the "for eight years it was gone" reference right away.

Why is this ad suddenly newsworthy now, though. Seriously, it's been on YouTube and God knows where else for about three months.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/MoveOn_Hope_It_Could_Happen_to_You.html?showall

Because they announced they're spending $150,000 to advertise it on TV today.

It was also posted on YouTube today. Unless July 28, 2008 was three months ago.

It must have been taken off YouTube for a while. It was out there, on sites like Talking Points Memo, earlier this year. And I'm fairly certain they liked to it thru YouTube. In any event, this has been around for a few months.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Well, earlier in the day you were liberal, but then buddy put us in the small conservative minority. So, rather than flip-flopping, I am proud to admit I was wrong. Happens all the time.

SEE! You're doing it right now!

What the MSM and other idiots call flip-flopping, I prefer to call refining and changing my views as I absorb new evidence.

TenuredVulture wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

WilliamC wrote:I can honestly say that if I was a Democrat and and that was a Republican ad I would still say that it was one of the dumbest ads I've ever seen.

Most Presidential ads are pretty dumb, including McCain's but that just is a big "WHAT THE HELL?".

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but I don't think it's remotely a "WTF" for anyone who almost literally is counting the days till Jan. 20, 2009.

But those people are already voting for Obama.

Most of them, certainly. But you really don't think this could win any converts, especially undecideds? We'll have to disagree.

BTW, I don't know if you're a conservative or not, but didn't you say, about one page back, that you hate liberals? What was I to think?

BuddyGroom wrote:the idea that the successor might be this smart, cool, decent likeable guy

You should see the way he talks to waitresses.

He gets FREE PIE.

What kind of pie? (I think this is about devolve in a Rock/Mick Foley routine.)

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Well, earlier in the day you were liberal, but then buddy put us in the small conservative minority. So, rather than flip-flopping, I am proud to admit I was wrong. Happens all the time.

SEE! You're doing it right now!

What the MSM and other idiots call flip-flopping, I prefer to call refining and changing my views as I absorb new evidence.

You're still doing it: FLIPPER FLOPPER!

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Well, earlier in the day you were liberal, but then buddy put us in the small conservative minority. So, rather than flip-flopping, I am proud to admit I was wrong. Happens all the time.

SEE! You're doing it right now!

What the MSM and other idiots call flip-flopping, I prefer to call refining and changing my views as I absorb new evidence.

You're still doing it: FLIPPER FLOPPER!

I've now a got a whole blog entry on it!

BuddyGroom wrote:I can't imagine any American politician since Hoover has caused as much gloom, killed off as much hope, as the Bush/Cheney amalgamation. Maybe Nixon at times - I was a kid then.

nixon was scary. Cheney's scary, but just a veep. Bush is merely, by turns, depressing & embarrassing.

dajafi wrote:Maybe the failure of imagination is mine, though, because I have no friggin' idea what sort of group would respond well to that steaming pile.

why, people for whom voting options are lifestyle accessory choices, of course. You really must stop imagining that most people - hell, many people - give more time to their choice of prez than to their choice of hair gel. Most auto advertising serves to affirm choices already made than to transmute shoppers who've made any other sort of choice already.

TenuredVulture wrote:
And I do own a pair of wingtips.

and fine footwear it is - but you don't stroll the seafront with them on

drsmooth wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I can't imagine any American politician since Hoover has caused as much gloom, killed off as much hope, as the Bush/Cheney amalgamation. Maybe Nixon at times - I was a kid then.

nixon was scary. Cheney's scary, but just a veep. Bush is merely, by turns, depressing & embarrassing.

dajafi wrote:Maybe the failure of imagination is mine, though, because I have no friggin' idea what sort of group would respond well to that steaming pile.

why, people for whom voting options are lifestyle accessory choices, of course. You really must stop imagining that most people - hell, many people - give more time to their choice of prez than to their choice of hair gel. Most auto advertising serves to affirm choices already made than to transmute shoppers who've made any other sort of choice already.

TenuredVulture wrote:
And I do own a pair of wingtips.

and fine footwear it is - but you don't stroll the seafront with them on

sez you.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
And I do own a pair of wingtips.

and fine footwear it is - but you don't stroll the seafront with them on

sez you.

this diversion is useless without pics

BuddyGroom wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

WilliamC wrote:I can honestly say that if I was a Democrat and and that was a Republican ad I would still say that it was one of the dumbest ads I've ever seen.

Most Presidential ads are pretty dumb, including McCain's but that just is a big "WHAT THE HELL?".

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but I don't think it's remotely a "WTF" for anyone who almost literally is counting the days till Jan. 20, 2009.

But those people are already voting for Obama.

Most of them, certainly. But you really don't think this could win any converts, especially undecideds? We'll have to disagree.

BTW, I don't know if you're a conservative or not, but didn't you say, about one page back, that you hate liberals? What was I to think?

Buddy, I think you're looking at this from way too much a true believer point of view. This ad, like Fahrenheit 9/11, hits Democrats who dislike Bush perfectly. The problem is that those people already are sold. It's way too over the top and preachy that everyone else has "hope" and you'd better get it too.

If someone was going to be sold on "hope" or "change" they'd have been sold by now. Now they're just laughing at that. At this point Obama needs to be sold to undecideds based on real, not nebulous, concepts.

Obama/Kaine?

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has told close associates that he has had "very serious" conversations with Sen. Barack Obama "about joining the Democratic ticket and has provided documents to the campaign as it combs through his background," the Washington Post reports.

Politico also cites sources that say Kaine is on a list of finalists.

Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Joe Biden and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are also being vetted, according to "sources with knowledge of the process."

I have the feeling that Obama would disqualify anyone who said anything about the process--like most pols, he's into control and timing--but if this is for real, it's an interesting play.

Kaine couldn't run for re-election next year because of Virginia's goofy one-term-and-out rule, so he'll need a job... is he popular enough in his state to move Virginia from "toss-up" to leaning-Democrat? He's Catholic; maybe that helps a little in other states. He probably qualifies as an outsider and comes off as vaguely post-partisan--certainly not an ultra-liberal. And he won't overshadow Obama--he's a pretty dull speaker and doesn't have his own national profile.

On balance I guess he would be a pretty strong pick.

Bayh strikes me as another likely option--he's hawkish, centrist, and popular in his home state of Indiana. But he'd cost the Dems a Senate seat, unless Mitch Daniels loses re-election, and as a second-gen Senator he's too Washington-insider to reinforce Obama's brand. Actually, the past pick he'd most resemble is Gore in 1992.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Virginia_618.pdf

This is from June. Doesn't look like Kaine does much for the ticket according to this. Might be a crappy poll.

To be honest, I have no idea what's been going on in VA politics.

dajafi wrote:Obama/Kaine?

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has told close associates that he has had "very serious" conversations with Sen. Barack Obama "about joining the Democratic ticket and has provided documents to the campaign as it combs through his background," the Washington Post reports.

Politico also cites sources that say Kaine is on a list of finalists.

Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Joe Biden and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are also being vetted, according to "sources with knowledge of the process."

I have the feeling that Obama would disqualify anyone who said anything about the process--like most pols, he's into control and timing--but if this is for real, it's an interesting play.

Kaine couldn't run for re-election next year because of Virginia's goofy one-term-and-out rule, so he'll need a job... is he popular enough in his state to move Virginia from "toss-up" to leaning-Democrat? He's Catholic; maybe that helps a little in other states. He probably qualifies as an outsider and comes off as vaguely post-partisan--certainly not an ultra-liberal. And he won't overshadow Obama--he's a pretty dull speaker and doesn't have his own national profile.

On balance I guess he would be a pretty strong pick.

Bayh strikes me as another likely option--he's hawkish, centrist, and popular in his home state of Indiana. But he'd cost the Dems a Senate seat, unless Mitch Daniels loses re-election, and as a second-gen Senator he's too Washington-insider to reinforce Obama's brand. Actually, the past pick he'd most resemble is Gore in 1992.

I think both candidates will be best served by enhancing their strengths, not trying to shore up their weaknesses. Obama is running as an outsider. An outsider reinforces his message. Picking Bill Richardson might reinforce that Obama doesn't have foreign policy experience, not make people feel secure.

He's trying to attack McCain at the weakness of his strength, his experience makes him too much of an insider. McCain can't walk away from positioning himself as the experienced candidate. So he has no defense. Classic marketing. Jack Trout would be proud. Independents that will vote for him will go for the outsider message. Don't dilute that.

McCain's base loves him for being a maverick. He can't sell that he's not the same old same old Republican by adding the same old same old Republican to the ticket.

Laexile wrote:I think both candidates will be best served by enhancing their strengths, not trying to shore up their weaknesses. Obama is running as an outsider. An outsider reinforces his message. Picking Bill Richardson might reinforce that Obama doesn't have foreign policy experience, not make people feel secure.

He's trying to attack McCain at the weakness of his strength, his experience makes him too much of an insider. McCain can't walk away from positioning himself as the experienced candidate. So he has no defense. Classic marketing. Jack Trout would be proud. Independents that will vote for him will go for the outsider message. Don't dilute that.

McCain's base loves him for being a maverick. He can't sell that he's not the same old same old Republican by adding the same old same old Republican to the ticket.

could you re-state this in a way that anyone not living in la-la land might understand even a little of it?

dump opinion