Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by TomVols, Aug 23, 2008.
Historically, it has been the role of the vice presidential nominee to be the attack dog during the general election. Thus, there is nothing surprising about Senator Obama's selection of someone capable of fulfilling this role.
And I'm sure if Obama had picked someone less outspoken, the right-wingers would be accusing him of having too big of an ego to work with someone strong.
It's like listening to Limbaugh or Hannity; no matter what Obama does they look at the worse possible scenario and then proceed to attack as though the straw man they created actually exists.
Not to mention we forget the president hires a cabinet and together they make the oval office. I have never viewed the president as one man but as the face of a political collaboration. Unless the man is arrogant and hard headed...
But remember, Obama has said we should not have a negative campaign. It will be interesting to see if he has the character and integrity to keep that intention, or if he will abandon it (though it could be argued that he has already abandoned it).
Let's face it: Obama was a very weak candidate to begin with and this didn't help him.
1) Senator McCain said the same thing and he abandoned it. So to be fair you might want to mention that, Pastor Larry. I also expect the GOP during the next two months to surpass its past record for throwing mud during a general election campaign.
2) Certainly no weaker than is Senator McCain.
By the ads I see here he has already broke this promise of not slinging mud. True he isn't as bad as McCain but he still hits below the virtual belt...
The AP is right wing? :smilewinkgrin:
I don't know that this is necessarily true.
Why did George Bush pick Dick Cheney, the ultimate attack dog?