A little off-topic but can I just say that the thing that angers me the most in all of this is not the lies, the racial implications or the way the campaign handled it. It is the fact that in her second (or maybe third) version of the story, she added sexual assault to the lies. Women who are victims of rape or other sexually-charged crimes and harassment have a hard enough time with public perception as it is. Their entire lives, the way they dress, their sexuality, is all trotted out to try and prove her wrong.
So this dumb goes and makes it up, which just sets it up for more people to be callous or doubting of claims by future victims. She already had the attention she was obviously craving without adding in the sexual assault. Couldn't she have just left bad enough alone?
Not the person you asked, but to jump in here, absolutely yes I think they would. Who tipped off Drudge? He is the reason this story went national, and he had a hed up on his site for quite a while before the Mellon Scaife paper in Pittsburgh reported it. The McCain campaign or his allies fed it to him.
I know I've learned my lesson for having halfway compassion for a female who cried assault. Next time, I'll assume the female is crying wolf.A little off-topic but can I just say that the thing that angers me the most in all of this is not the lies, the racial implications or the way the campaign handled it. It is the fact that in her second (or maybe third) version of the story, she added sexual assault to the lies. Women who are victims of rape or other sexually-charged crimes and harassment have a hard enough time with public perception as it is. Their entire lives, the way they dress, their sexuality, is all trotted out to try and prove her wrong.
So this dumb goes and makes it up, which just sets it up for more people to be callous or doubting of claims by future victims. She already had the attention she was obviously craving without adding in the sexual assault. Couldn't she have just left bad enough alone?
So the Obama PR reps ins ute more due diligence than the McCain PR reps?
Proof of phone calls, emails, etc between himself and Todd, for one. Statements from the reporters who got the information directly from him for another.
He's not a high ranking official making a special press conference. He's a communications director who speaks to a regular bank of reporters more often than he likely talks to his own family. And these guys give tons of information to the media that has no goal. They routinely have to answer questions like what kind of snacks the volunteers are getting. Yes, it's stupid. No, I'm not kidding.
Exactly how many commnications directors can you read the mind of on a regular basis and when did you discover such a gift? That must be wonderful to have.
I'll keep you in mind the next time I watch a communications director answer what brand of shoes their candidate wears and whether or not he/she likes peas.
McCain's campaign seems to be beset by infighting, leaks and a lack of discipline. Part of why Obama is winning is that none of that applies to his campaign. When his supporters were screaming to the rooftops about how awful Palin was and trashing her nonstop, he and his campaign decided to ignore her, knowing that isn't smart politics. Time after time, his campaign has been vindicated after having their strategy questioned.
If some Obama , as you like to call them, pulled a stunt like this, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to draw attention to it. These sorts of things are like live hand grenades, and this one blew up in McCain's lap. Ultimately though I don't know who is changing their vote or making up their minds based on this.
They are ahead, there is no reason for them to go on record and do something risky like that. They are basically just playing defense right now. Why pry defeat from the jaws of victory over an unsubstantiated story?
McCain's campaign is behind and has nothing to lose,which I think greatly contributed to the fact that they gave the details to the reporters. That, plus it happened in PA, where they are hedging their bets (and therefore, the entire campaign).
If their fortunes had been reversed? That may be altogether different. Desperation brings out the worst in people, from both sides of the spectrum. So yeah, I think that if the polls were reversed, we might see the Obama campaign do something like that. But we will never know, so its a little useless to speculate.
This may have been brought up but I'm seriously tired and don't plan on reading too many more pages in this big thread but does anyone find the most preturbing part of this lie to be that her "attacker" was a big black man?
She's obviously a racist idiot.
I'm not looking to be labeled the apologist for the Mc/P side of things here, but given her behavior, the odds are that she actually has been sexually assaulted at some point in her life.A little off-topic but can I just say that the thing that angers me the most in all of this is not the lies, the racial implications or the way the campaign handled it. It is the fact that in her second (or maybe third) version of the story, she added sexual assault to the lies. Women who are victims of rape or other sexually-charged crimes and harassment have a hard enough time with public perception as it is. Their entire lives, the way they dress, their sexuality, is all trotted out to try and prove her wrong.
So this dumb goes and makes it up, which just sets it up for more people to be callous or doubting of claims by future victims. She already had the attention she was obviously craving without adding in the sexual assault. Couldn't she have just left bad enough alone?
It doesn't excuse anything that happened here. But this sort of attention-seeking self-destructive behavior is exhibited more often than not by someone with sexual assault in their history. It's how they self-justify. And, yes, it totally sucks.
Equivocating this conversation with reporters to one about shoes and volunteers snacks is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt that's fine (but i do maintain its naive - and thats nothing more than my opinion) but trying to compare this situation to another one is simply you doing some spinning of your own.
PwwNtT
Jesus Christ sometimes my owning capabilities shock even me.
Last edited by Cant_Be_Faded; 10-24-2008 at 08:45 PM.
I see what you're saying, but it's hard for me to have sympathy for her, it really is. I hope she gets help for her problems, but after looking at her myspace and twitter pages, it seems like she knew full well what she was doing.
yeah, I noted that earlier
If she had claimed it was just some random Obama supporter that got into an argument in a parking lot that devolved into this, without the stereotypical "black thug", I would've been more worried that this might be real.Wow, and her story "felt" so true...I mean of course a scary black man who robs and mutilates people represents Obama supporters.
It is comfortable for you to label me as intellectually dishonest because if I am then you don't have to face the silliness of making a blanket statement like this:
My arguement has been all about context. Yours have been all about blanket statements. I gave you an example that disproved your blanket statement and now you want to go back to context.
You need some work on your dismount.
Everyone who called bull deserves a spur, or a black eye icon or something
or easier yet--a backwards B icon....that would be perfect
K, how about I amend my statement to apply only to situations like this? I mean I figured that would have been obvious but if you honestly want to believe the point I was making applied to the guy saying " o" to a reporter then I'll happily omit trivial situations from my statement.
I think we can both agree that the information he was giving the media was not on the level of someone's shoe size or who in the campaign prefers snickers bars.
I'm sure they never say "no comment" out of convenience though. Because of their obligation to share information they would only say "no comment" if they actually had no information.
BTW, your argument is not about context. Your argument is that he could be making a statement on an event of this magnitude that didn't have political goals or ramifications.
I don't know you from Zippo the clown. I respond to the argument you make, not the special mind reading powers i think I have over you. And I'll ignore you likening "saying o" to answering actual questions. Oh, wait. No I won't.
Yes. Agreed and agreed.
You assume I think the guy's innocent. The truth is I really don't know. Could the situation have been handled smarter? yes. But that's not the same thing as it being handled improperly. I'm not willing to call that until I see proof of it. You are, and that's fine. But at least own up that you don't have solid proof yet, either.
I've been in too many situations where PR takes the fall even when they haven't done anything wrong. Yes, in part that's the job you sign up for, but there is an important distinction between "you could have done something better" and "you did the wrong thing."
People get angry that candidates hide behind "no comment" all the time and then jump all over them when they make a mistake in the middle of a story's cycle. You reap what you sow.
No. My argument is that the context of his statement and how it was presented is key in determining any political goals or ramifications that can be gleaned from the exchange. You don't get to tell me what my argument is. You may read the minds of communications directors everywhere, but you have no idea what color panties I'm wearing, Superman.
I think if you're going to get angry because I don't spell everything out then make statements bout people getting angry over no comments and whether or not he handled this improperly you might have a problem because I'm pretty sure I said neither of those things. Who's reading minds now?
The fact that he gave a statement on the story so early and gave out information that later turned out to be inaccurate gives him and the McCain camp in turn ownership of the story. I'm on the record in this thread as stating I'm pretty sure the Obama camp would have done the same.
Whether that is proper or improper or right or wrong isn't really of any concern to me because its frankly irrelevant. His statements - in my opinion - were made with an intent to paint the Obama campaign in a bad light. I think the Obama camp would have doe the same. Thats simply the reality of the situation and because of that when it blows up in your face its going to look badly upon you.
That has nothing to do with wrong or right. It is what it is. He could have avoided the story all together but he didn't and because of that he and the McCain camp has to deal with the consequences.
Thats only because you're not wearing any. And Superman wasn't psychic. Pick another super hero please.
What has given you the impression that I'm angry in any way? Oh. Right. Mind-reading powers. You're welcome to make sloppy blanket-statement arguments all day long. I'm not your mommy.
He gave out information when he had it which was accurate at the time he did so as far as we know. I agree ownership of the story is an important element of this equation.
Yeah, that annoying stuff that can be proven is so irrelevant. It's the mind reading powers that are really the important crux of the issue.
You do understand that equating your opinion to reality is exactly what makes Palin a nutjob, right?
Right and wrong has no effect on how you hold a candidate to task for the consequences of events? Oy.
I weep for a future that doesn't realize the link between Superman and "Can You Read My Mind."
Forgive them, John Williams, they know not what they do.
Thank you for making me feel just that old.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
