Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1ExoaSCCcHw

I hope this shows his campaign was behind the past week....or could be to make me hope that.

A little of both I think. Part realization of the failure his past tactics have been, and part play for some kind of political future after a failed Presidential bid (my take on him being a man). Though what would be really telling is if people close to the campagin continue to press the Ayers/Wright/Rezko/Hussein line. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen. He has done just about everything but present a unified message.

dogma wrote:A little of both I think. Part realization of the failure his past tactics have been, and part play for some kind of political future after a failed Presidential bid (my take on him being a man). Though what would be really telling is if people close to the campagin continue to press the Ayers/Wright/Rezko/Hussein line. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen. He has done just about everything but present a unified message.

Yeah, I'm so damn cynical that I immediately thought the polls weren't responding so they were changing tactics. However, I think he goes beyond what he would need to do if that's the case. The older lady at the end could have been cut off with a simple 'he's not a terrorist, next question'...but he added he was a good family man and a good citizen. The idealist in me would love to see a McCain/Obama embrace after the election.

Couple this with the Palin probe showing she abused her power....he's done.

Yeah, an embarassment on the side that's up can bring a one-sided race back to an actual contest; an embarassment on the side that's down is a coffin nail.

As for the video... this is the fearmongering and negative campigning, targeted at people who can't think well for themselves in the first place, come home to roost. The box was opened, and all this crap flew out.

I think that was incredibly decent of McCain.

To recognise the value of ones opponent is something normally lacking in Politics. What McCain has said here is that although he feels he would make a better President, that should Obama win the Election, he ought to do a good enough job.

I think the important thing to remember here is just how monumental Obama's achievement would be. Not 40 years ago, America was still witnessing the Civil Rights movement, and in such a short space of time, a man who once would have been looked down upon for the colour of his skin is incredibly close to becoming the Nations figure head.

And yet, in those 40 years, how much have attitudes genuinely changed in the South? Certainly, the media paints things quite bleakly when it wants to, so I am somewhat unsure about how good/bad things can be.

And McCain realises this. If he loses the Election, with history being written by the Victor, he risks leaving behind a very negative portrayal of himself. Although it would appear both sides have gone out of their way to not bring up the race issue, and I applaud both sides for this, there are those who perceive it to be crucial.

But with this one speech, McCain has shown, or at least demonstrated, a respect for his opponent he would like his faithful to show. And regardless of motivation, that is a good thing. It was the body language and tone of voice that makes me think this is genuine. It reminds me of someone trying to reassure Children that there is nothing to fear. I mean, one person said they were *Scared* of Obama. Why? Like McCain said, he is a good man, despite the difference in Political Standpoints.

And I agree with McCain. It now looks like he is prepared to fight the sort of election I want to see. One where the candidates do not attack each others weaknesses and shortcomings, but where they promote their own strengths, and allay fears about where they lack by explaining how they intend to cover them, which advisors etc.

McCain came over as a decent bloke, though a cynic would say he couldn't possibly have agreed with racist comments about Obama's ancestry.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think the important thing to remember here is just how monumental Obama's achievement would be. Not 40 years ago, America was still witnessing the Civil Rights movement, and in such a short space of time, a man who once would have been looked down upon for the colour of his skin is incredibly close to becoming the Nations figure head.

And yet, in those 40 years, how much have attitudes genuinely changed in the South? Certainly, the media paints things quite bleakly when it wants to, so I am somewhat unsure about how good/bad things can be.

Have you ever been to that mythical "South"? I am from the south, and I assure you, it's hardly as racist as you perceive. Race is still an issue, but I'd wager the south has taken it head on better than some other sections of my country.

The northern states also have a good deal of racism...they just hide it better. Besides, how many brothers live in New Hampshire???

Good on McCain. He should have been doing this in the first place. I'm sure there is a political aspect to this, but it's probably also that he realized his campaign frigging stinks. He never should have wallowed in that mud.

Both of the candidates are good decent men, and both would be a damn sight better than W. Contrary to what the DNC or RNC campaign would have you believe.

Being from the South, and having lived in Connecticut for a couple years, I can safely say the Northeast has some serious racial problems to get over. Not just white-vs.-black, but even more nitpicky stuff, like Italian or Slovak. It blew me away when I heard my fellow bank tellers talking about "that stupid wop" or the like... and don't get me started on the n-word.

Now, I'm not saying that my backwoods brethren here in Dixie don't have some knuckle-dragging habits to get out of, but I can safely say that I've never heard that kind of talk in a business setting here in Tennessee.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think that was incredibly decent of McCain.

To recognise the value of ones opponent is something normally lacking in Politics. What McCain has said here is that although he feels he would make a better President, that should Obama win the Election, he ought to do a good enough job.

I think the important thing to remember here is just how monumental Obama's achievement would be. Not 40 years ago, America was still witnessing the Civil Rights movement, and in such a short space of time, a man who once would have been looked down upon for the colour of his skin is incredibly close to becoming the Nations figure head.

And yet, in those 40 years, how much have attitudes genuinely changed in the South? Certainly, the media paints things quite bleakly when it wants to, so I am somewhat unsure about how good/bad things can be.

And McCain realises this. If he loses the Election, with history being written by the Victor, he risks leaving behind a very negative portrayal of himself. Although it would appear both sides have gone out of their way to not bring up the race issue, and I applaud both sides for this, there are those who perceive it to be crucial.

But with this one speech, McCain has shown, or at least demonstrated, a respect for his opponent he would like his faithful to show. And regardless of motivation, that is a good thing. It was the body language and tone of voice that makes me think this is genuine. It reminds me of someone trying to reassure Children that there is nothing to fear. I mean, one person said they were *Scared* of Obama. Why? Like McCain said, he is a good man, despite the difference in Political Standpoints.

And I agree with McCain. It now looks like he is prepared to fight the sort of election I want to see. One where the candidates do not attack each others weaknesses and shortcomings, but where they promote their own strengths, and allay fears about where they lack by explaining how they intend to cover them, which advisors etc.

All that would be fine if looked at in isolation, ignoring the last three months of campaigning. McCain has been running a nasty campaign and now that that's failed he doesn't get to pull up and try for the high ground. Credit to the guy if he does run a clean campaign from here, maybe it'll help us all remember the McCain that we used to know, but we really shouldn't be expected to forget the crap he's tried to pull.

I personally believe he is playing politics again. Whenever he thinks something will look "presidential" to the undecided voters he does that. He's own party is already going to vote for him at this point, he has built up enough hatred for whatever false rumors are out there about Obama in his own party. He "suspended" his campaign to fix the financial crisis. It isn't fixed and he is still campaigning. His involvement actually delayed the magical bailout that didn't work. Now he knows if he deflects all the rumors about Obama for why a lot of unintelligent people don't like him he will seem like a very good presidential fellow to defend the honor of his opponent. Oh well, I don't which becomes president they both are going to end up being pretty bad for this country overall.

You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Breton wrote:You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Again, all that is fine, unless you've been following his campaign for the last three months.

sebster wrote:

Breton wrote:You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Again, all that is fine, unless you've been following his campaign for the last three months.

I don't think his campaign was any better or worse than anyone else's in recent history. I also chalk that up to not having control over the people running his campaign rather than his opinion of it exactly- which certainly affects how I view his leadership capabilities. I haven't seen a decent (as in human, respect-filled, not treating the public at large as stupid, ignorant masses) for a long time.

As his competition has been no better, I don't see the issue. If you can't stand the heat you shouldn't be running.

dogma wrote:Couple this with the Palin probe showing she abused her power....he's done.

This issue is such a non-issue that it's ridiculous. The only thing that Palin is guilty of is not stopping the man from being terminated. She didn't initiate a witch hunt, she didn't try to bring him down, she just didn't stop the powers that be from doing what they did when she had the chance to.

If this is a show stopper, then all of the crap that has been popping up over Obama and Biden over the last couple of weeks should have sunk any chances they had at getting elected a County Sherrif.

This election is the 3rd I've witnessed since I began to care, and it's really pointed out that the power the media has in picking the next president. By and large, they are in the bag for Obama. But gak that would have Republicans nailed to the wall, isn't even getting a second glance, so the American public isn't learning about it. Ayers is a small issue. Huge things like the actual proof of Obama's citizenship from birth (and there is very good reason to question it), his dealings in Kenyan politics, his involvement with ACORN and what may be the worst voting scandal in this nations history (Indianapolis has 105% of it's eligible voters registered). Why isn't any of that in the spot light?

Instead, we're concentrating on things like a Governer being a human being.

djones520 wrote:Huge things like the actual proof of Obama's citizenship from birth (and there is very good reason to question it), his dealings in Kenyan politics, his involvement with ACORN and what may be the worst voting scandal in this nations history (Indianapolis has 105% of it's eligible voters registered). Why isn't any of that in the spot light?

Because there's no facts to report. These are non-existent "stories" that someone with just enough braincells to use e-mail and vote Republican came up with, just like the "he's a Muslim, and went to a madrassa, and had gay sex with Ahmadinejad on a nuke aimed at Israel" bullcrap. Just because it gets O'Reilly hard, or lets Rush skip his morning Oxycontin, it doesn't mean that there's any truth to it. And as for the media being "in the bag for Obama", that's so laughable it hurts. If there was a story to report, they'd be on it like wolverines, and damn who it's on. The media has no loyalties; they report whatever sells ad-time best. If Obama had a real scandal, something that could be proved with facts not wishful thinking, they would GLORY in bringing him down.

wtb swift boat veterans against obama

Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

Well, he could understand what it is like to be a soldier better than another candidate, which is important I reckon.
I still think he is a poorer choice though. But his military service is not completely irrelevant.

Typeline wrote:Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

In America, fighter pilots are kind of an upper class of the military. If you're both willing
and able to fly and fight at high speeds, you're looked at with some wonder and awe. See
our films from the 80s such as Top Gun (you can hear the Top Gun anthem at the end
of the Republican National Convention). You can also see an older film based on Tom
Wolfe's book The Right Stuff.

Typeline wrote:Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

Start actually reading stuff then. McCain served as the commander of the largest fighter squadron at the time in the Navy. Take it from someone who has dealt in the Operations area of the Air Force. They don't make idiots aviation squadron commanders. People who make that rank that can't hack command positions are shuffled off to harmless jobs till they retire. Being put in charge of 50 fighter jets, the pilots, and all the staff required to run that is a huge deal, and does equate to leadership experience.

As commanding officer, McCain relied upon a relatively unorthodox leadership style based upon the force of his personality.[188] He removed personnel he thought ineffective, and sought to improve morale and productivity by establishing an informal rapport with enlisted men.[186][63][188] Dealing with limited post-Vietnam defense budgets and parts shortages,[186][63] He was forceful in demanding that respect be given the female officers just beginning to arrive into the unit.[188] McCain's leadership abilities were credited with improving the unit's aircraft readiness; for the first time, all fifty of its aircraft were able to fly.[186][63] Although some operational metrics declined during the period,[185][188] the pilot safety metrics improved to the point of having zero accidents.[186][185] The squadron was awarded its first-ever Meritorious Unit Commendation,[184] while McCain received a Meritorious Service Medal.[91] McCain later stated that being commanding officer of VA-174 was the most rewarding assignment of his naval career.[189] When his stint ended in July 1977,[184] the change of command ceremony was attended by his father and the rest of his family, as well as some of his fellow POWs; speaker Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. said that John had joined Jack and Slew McCain in a place of honor in Navy tradition, a tribute that deeply moved McCain.

If I could find that from Wiki alone, then it out to be easy to find even more information. That is if you care to learn something other then the usual trash fed by KOS and the DemocraticUnderground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain#Commanding_officer

Certainly military service can be considered leadership experience. I doubt anyone would question that. What people do, and should, question is whether or not military experience is somehow more applicable to the Presidency than other credentials.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on an issue of this importance. I'm not saying anything against McCain. It should be easy to verify his record from official sources.

I am not really following what we are talking about, but McCain is just one of those people you just respect. Competent, personable and responsible.

Maybe the Republicans had more learned/ experienced candidates, but McCain is personable and an experienced politician in his right.

If I was an American I would vote ... yeah I don't know. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton I think, just to see what happens. I would say the same for Obama. The Democrats seem to have experience (unofficially led by Bill Clinton) whereas maybe it is time for a change from the Rupublicans. Does that sound smart or just trite.

McCain's military record shows him to be personally brave and to have behaved with honour and distinction in an horrific situation.

All well and good, but this has no bearing on how good a president he would be. The only thing that should matter is the policy positions of the candidates (not that I'm naive enough to believe that this will be the deciding factor)

What will decide the election is the same thing that usually decides it - turnout.
1. Which party gets more of their base to the polls.
2. How many people are turned off voting for their 'preferred' candidate due to non-policy issues (these won't vote at all or will cast a 'protest' vote for a third party candidate).
3. How many undecideds (particularly in groups with traditionally low voter turnout such as under-25s and some minority communities) can be persuaded to actually go and vote.

Changing people's mind on who they vote for is incredibly difficult. To give a UK example, the old mining towns in the north of England are safe seats for the Labour party. Even when such constituencies suffer from Labour policies, the people who live there still vote overwhelmingly for Labour candidates.
The phrase commonly used is 'you could stick a red rosette on a monkey and they'd vote for it'.

I assume its the same in the US - most people will vote for the party they've always voted for with very little considered judgement.

I don't think serving in the forces and seeing action is any guarantee that you will have someone who is prepared to send in troops at the drop of a hat. My father was a Royal Marine in the 60's and served 2 tours of duty in Borneo, I think he joined up when he was 16 and came out when his 23, and he has a very cynical outlook on the military. He knows that leaders are more than happy to send youngmen to war and they reliy on the naivety of our youngmen to do this.

Breton wrote:You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Certainly no saint. The North Vietnamese offered to let a lot of PoWs out early- provided that they signed a “confession” to being war criminals, and made statements that the US’ involvement in the war was illegal. McCain got the same offer a lot of guys did, and would have been in violation of the Code of Conduct had he accepted it.

djones520 wrote:This election is the 3rd I've witnessed since I began to care, and it's really pointed out that the power the media has in picking the next president. By and large, they are in the bag for Obama. But gak that would have Republicans nailed to the wall, isn't even getting a second glance, so the American public isn't learning about it. Ayers is a small issue. Huge things like the actual proof of Obama's citizenship from birth (and there is very good reason to question it), his dealings in Kenyan politics, his involvement with ACORN and what may be the worst voting scandal in this nations history (Indianapolis has 105% of it's eligible voters registered). Why isn't any of that in the spot light?

I'm an independent, and not a Dem. But I've heard enough of that Republican propaganda. The horribly biased media didn't seem to hurt you in the '80s when you won and controlled the Presidency, the '90s when you controlled both houses of Congress, or in the two extremely close elections this decade.

Never mind the media turning into W's lapdogs at the beginning of the Iraq war, instead of asking the tough questions about our actual reasons for being there. Seems as though the GOP's had a pretty good run despite the dreaded liberal media.

The GOP's going to lose this election for two reasons:

1) the current prez is widely viewed as a failure, and
2) McCain hasn't been able to stick to a message, let alone articulate how he'd be any different than the current failed prez

It's really that simple. Maybe if McCain had actually been a maverick during the past decade, he could have helped to rein in some of Bush's policies. But he instead toed the party line in order to get the nomination. And now you see what happens when you hitch your star to the wrong person.

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves (not hanging chads, etc.) for losing the last two elections. The GOP can look in the mirror for their loss in this one. It has nothing to do with bizarre stories spread by paid rumor-mongers.

Breton wrote:I don't think his campaign was any better or worse than anyone else's in recent history. I also chalk that up to not having control over the people running his campaign rather than his opinion of it exactly- which certainly affects how I view his leadership capabilities. I haven't seen a decent (as in human, respect-filled, not treating the public at large as stupid, ignorant masses) for a long time.

That first sentence is crazy for two reasons. First up, recent history would include Bush 2000 primary run, featuring the push polling gem 'would your support for McCain change if you knew he had fathered a black child', and his 2004 re-election bid and the whole swiftboats for truth thing. So no, this campaign is a lot better than at least one in recent memory. But it's also a crazy sentence because the standard isn't just other campaigns, but should be directly compared against the campaign run by the other guy.

Obama's campaign hasn't been flawless. There's been a couple pretty average misrepresentations of McCain's positions (mostly quotes taken out of context). Obama's shifted a few positions to be more politically viable (dropping his moderated position on troop withdrawal and going to a hard line 16 months timetable). But on the whole Obama's campaign has been built around selling Obama to the public, and it's been a selling job built around a lot of policy speach.

McCain's campaign hasn't been built around McCain. To the extent that it has, its never gone beyond the most superficial of branding exercises, maverick McCain the outsider. Instead he's built his campaign around attacking Obama. Which is fine, Reagan ran his first campaign on Carter's popularity... and won and won well because the facts were in and they weren't kind to Carter. But the facts aren't that bad for Obama, because it's been Republicans that have seen the country reach this position. So instead McCain has lied. Not just misquoted or misrepresented, he's lied. He's admitted he lied, then repeated the same damn lies. Stranger danger passed off as sex education. The bridge to nowhere. When all that saw him fall further and further behind, he's turned back to straight up slander, terrorist connections and similar rubbish.

And that didn't work either, so now he says it's time to play nice. And people go along with him...

As a American I would personally prefer the Pres to have had military leadership/experience but in this election it's about change from some of the bad Bush policies in the past. I just haven't heard McCain state how he would change or differentiate from Bush's administration in enough detail. His statement about buying up bad mortgages has frankly scared me much more than any statements made by Obama on social reforms/changes.