Topaz Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Have any of you heard about the "October Surprise" for Obama? That's were someone is going to come forward with info about Obama to either make him look bad or disqualify him from running for President. Last night, I heard a guy talk about Obama and he is NOT a born US citizen and that he has a copy of his birth certifcate and that he was born outside of the US, in which he wouldn't be able to run for the office. So then that would put Clinton as the Dem, replacing Obama. I think that the powers that be want Clinton to run against McCain and that Clinton will win the election. I hope that I am wrong and that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Have any of you heard about the "October Surprise" for Obama? That's were someone is going to come forward with info about Obama to either make him look bad or disqualify him from running for President. Last night, I heard a guy talk about Obama and he is NOT a born US citizen and that he has a copy of his birth certifcate and that he was born outside of the US, in which he wouldn't be able to run for the office. I heard a guy say the Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.....Senator McCain was born in.....PANAMA. Great October surprise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 (edited) I think you're in the minority of you think the these ads will hurt Obama more than McCain, and I think McCain must be feeling desperate to be stooping to ads such as the Spears/Hilton and high gas prices ads. As for "a radical like Obama," if "so far in the campaign, Obama's statements are largely bland, kitschy, Hollywood generalities: 'We are the world,'" please explain to me why you are claiming he is such a radical? Seems to me he'd have to be making some strong statements in order for you to make such a claim.Your otherwise interesting post deserves a better response but ultimately it comes down to this: negative ads work better for McCain than Obama.Why? I'm sorry but Obama is the guy on the White Horse riding in to save the day. He has set himself up for negative ads. McCain, OTOH, has placed himself well away from being a target of negative ads. Americans live in a world where elections are decided by who is more vulnerable to negative ads - that's Obama, not McCain. Aside from this image perspective, Obama is in fact a radical. He's a Hollywood, NY, MSM, People Magazine, Oprah liberal. Mainstream America will watch him, they may even choose him in telephone polls but they will not choose him to be their president. Edited August 19, 2008 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 This whole discussion over McCain's "negative ads" is a joke. The Obama campaign has released several negative ads of their own and I don't hear the same people complaining. This is politics people. It's the Presidential campaign, and there's going to be negative ads. Why? Because negative ads work. And they come from both sides. And usually the side that's complaining, is the side that's losing the battle. Hence, why the Obama campaign got so worked up over the celebrity ad. Why? Because it's an effective ad, that worked. Obama's just gonna have to roll up his sleeves, campaign hard in all 57 states, so that he can be President for the next 8 - 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 This whole discussion over McCain's "negative ads" is a joke.It's no joke at all.Which candidate is more vulnerable to negative ads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 It's no joke at all.Which candidate is more vulnerable to negative ads? Sorry, I should have expanded on that point. You're right, it's definitely not a joke. I just think all of the complaining by certain individuals in this forum, on behalf of Obama, is somewhat humourous. Check that, very humourous. And to answer your question, it's obviously the Messiah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 (edited) Sorry, I should have expanded on that point. You're right, it's definitely not a joke. I just think all of the complaining by certain individuals in this forum, on behalf of Obama, is somewhat humourous. Check that, very humourous.And to answer your question, it's obviously the Messiah. I could care less about the commericial ads, what I do care about it is, Direction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Re-asserting our world dominance, Domestic Economics, and Progressive scientific research like Stem cells Edited August 19, 2008 by moderateamericain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 (edited) Your otherwise interesting post deserves a better response but ultimately it comes down to this: negative ads work better for McCain than Obama.Why? I'm sorry but Obama is the guy on the White Horse riding in to save the day. He has set himself up for negative ads. McCain, OTOH, has placed himself well away from being a target of negative ads. Americans live in a world where elections are decided by who is more vulnerable to negative ads - that's Obama, not McCain. Obama hasn't set himself up for anything. He says he's for change, that's hardly claiming that he's going to "ride in to save the day." His reception has more to do with people's support of him than anything he's done. For some reason, the world sees him as our "white knight." As for your perception that Americans live in a world where elections are decided by who is more "vulnerable," not sure where you're getting that from. Aside from this image perspective, Obama is in fact a radical. He's a Hollywood, NY, MSM, People Magazine, Oprah liberal. Mainstream America will watch him, they may even choose him in telephone polls but they will not choose him to be their president. Obama is hardly a radical. You can't judge the man by who supports him; only by his ideas/plans/platform, and I haven't seen anything "radical" in the works. Care to expand on that? What in his platform do you determine to be radical? As for who Americans will choose at the polls, no one has the answer to that; and no one will have the answer until Election Day. Edited August 19, 2008 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 Obama is hardly a radical. Anyone who votes against medical care for infants surviving abortions is a radical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Obama is hardly a radical. You can't judge the man by who supports him; only by his ideas/plans/platform, and I haven't seen anything "radical" in the works. Care to expand on that? What in his platform do you determine to be radical?He's black (African American) so of course he's "radical".The only way a black man could become president is if he ran as a Republican. (Obama is desperate at this point and he may choose a right wing 'white good ol' boy' as Veep but it will just make him look more as a flip flopper.) IMV, it has nothing to do with his skin colour. Obama's far too radical leftist/liberal to be president. The Dems were crazy to believe that someone like Obama could become President. ---- AW, if the Dems chose Nancy Pelosi as their presidential candidate, what chances would you give for her winning the White House? Well, Obama is arguably left/liberal of Pelosi, and while he speaks better, he's without her savvy. In national politics, IMV, Obama has no chance. Then again, I may be wrong. Obama's a good speaker. He has a rich voice and perfect cadence, like Reagan. Edited August 21, 2008 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 IMV, it has nothing to do with his skin colour. Obama's far too radical leftist/liberal to be president. The Dems were crazy to believe that someone like Obama could become President.I don't particularily want Obama to win but I think he is a shoe in because he has a lot of charisma and also happens to be black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 I do like McCain as a person but being 72 and having had cancer once and the office being a very stressful, I think Obama would be a better choice. Bush and Iraq have come to an understanding of bringing most of the troops home by 2011 from Iraq. Bush and the PM, president of Iraq just have to sign the deal. I would think alot of the troops will be sent to Afghanistan. Mccain has the the Bush family behind himand that can't be good either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Simon Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I guess the "white knight" image Obama projects *does* set him up for such --- and boy, after the latest numbers, I'm thinking ... is that what being a "nice guy" gets you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Looks like McCain was right! Obama's Acceptance Stage Built by Britney Spears' Set Designer Remember a few weeks ago when supposedly impartial media members were angered by a McCain ad that likened Barack Obama to Britney Spears? Well, the stage that Obama will be giving his acceptance speech from Thursday evening was actually built by the same guy that designs Britney Spears' concert sets Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Looks like McCain was right! Obama's Acceptance Stage Built by Britney Spears' Set Designer Good catch, Shady.Obama is too much the showman. If he had run as a Republican, he might have won. America has a different majority/minority relationship than Canada. (Laurier was elected in 1896.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Obama is too much the showman. If he had run as a Republican, he might have won. America has a different majority/minority relationship than Canada. (Laurier was elected in 1896.) Obama should be warned that America loves to build celebrity only to tear it down just for entertainment. Just ask Brittney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.