From CNN.com:
Biden also said he’s had enough of the McCain camp’s personal attacks on Obama, slamming the Arizona senator for violating the “ethics” of the old neighborhood for not having the courage to go after Obama’s character in their debates the way he has in speeches and in television ads.
“In my neighborhood you want to say something about me, look me in the eye and tell me,” said Biden. “Say it to me straight up. Say it to me head on. That’s the code, that’s the ethics! Say it to me! Ladies and gentlemen, I’m tired of losing, I’m tired of taking this stuff, I’ve had enough.”
This is what I feel about some activists and critics–if you have something to say, say it! Let’s not hide behind less personal media. Don’t rely on technology to provide a cover for personal attacks. Open your mouth and share your thoughts with the world. Embrace the world.
Incidentally, on the political front, John McCain and Sarah Palin are stooping to new lows:
(CNN) — John McCain is continuing his effort to associate Barack Obama with 1960′s radical William Ayers, launching a national campaign ad Friday that accuses the Illinois senator of “blind ambition.”
“Obama’s blind ambition. When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied. Obama. Blind ambition. Bad judgment,” the ad’s narrator says.
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
I’m terribly amused by the fact that they’re trying to intimidate us into voting for them by associating Obama with Ayers.
To start, lets look at what “Terrorist” can be defined as [see below]. Doesn’t it seem ironic?
According to Websters Unabridged Dictionary:
Ter”ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. –Burke.
Sources:
“terrorist.” Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 10 Oct. 2008. .
Jason,
I think they’re getting desperate. McSame picking Palin was a Hail Mary move, one designed to invigorate the party and hide the fact that McSame is the same. It worked for about a week and a half. It’s crazy how they’ve always been trying to tie in Obama with some kind of foreign influence. I think they’re gambling that enough people in the U.S. can’t be bothered to pick up a newspaper and so they’re aiming for the uneducated vote.
Speaking of aiming for the uneducated, David Brooks came out with a timely article today: The Class War Before Palin. He says:
The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.
I wish I had read that before I went down to Corvallis – haha
I agree though, they’ve been desperate. Well, at least for this election.
As far as the uneducated vote though, [assumming that this does not including the majority of first time voters as being uneducated - but unaware] is there the same emphasis on voting in terms of values. Ie. Would voting be as much a priority for them?
It’d be nice if there were studies or something on this, [Then again, maybe not because then the political parties would take it into account way too much] But as I see it, political apathy is a matter of culture that shows a lack of stress of ones representation (or ones voting)
It confuses me that they would do so, because they won’t get much votes from it. And then again, the November Ballots will have special care taken to them because its a Presidential Election. Will voter turn out far exceed your typical ~50% ish mark for Presidential Elections? [If I remember that correctly from the news years back...maybe its higher]
Correct me if I’m reading “uneducated” differently than you’re intending it to be interpreted. Or if there is anything I’m missing – since I’m feeling a hole in my logic somewhere.
I could say some more, but this hole is bugging me, and I’d rather fix it before instead of going on with a flat tire.
Off-Topic-train-of-thought: I think that if they were really wanting to get more votes, I think that what they’re trying to actually do is get the people who do not typically vote, to vote. Considering the terribly low voter turn out, if they can get a bunch of the traditional no-votes then they might actually get something.
When I talk about the uneducated vote, I’m talking about the people who don’t pursue higher education and who cling to religion and guns. They’re the people who see education as a bad thing, or a thing that hurts family values. They have a different lifestyle that, well, interferes with progress. It’s unfortunate.
These people, even though they’re uneducated, do tend to vote. Their churches sometimes urge them to vote, and they usually vote Republican. This was what Brooks was discussing in his article. This was a bit of a mystery to me too when I first started talking to people about politics–people who are poor and who get killed by laissez-faire policies usually vote Republican. Don’t get me wrong–there are also rich, smart people who vote Repub too. But it’s a problem with poor people, mostly because these Repubs appeal to the uneducated’s up-by-the-bootstraps beliefs. It’s like they challenge the poor peoples’ manhoods. And it works.
Hmm, I’ve never thought about it that way.
I’ve only ever heard reference to the Religious vote in those terms.
Sounds awful to vote for policies that don’t help you. Especially, when you think its whats best.
Anyways… I think this is something I will look into more on my own.
Jason
It’s the same old challenge. You approach a person, tell him that he’s walking away from the gambling table because he’s a wuss. Then he gambles because he needs to prove his manhood. This is kind of what the rich do to the poor. The unfairness of it all is that the rich control the media, control the dialogue, and tell people what to think, and so there’s a substantial imbalance of power.