A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://www.gatewayredbirds.com/forum/
He was a Democratic-Republican. He had both sides covered.obucard wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be in the Democratic party, either.
Crazy, or a conspiracy.......Popeye_Card wrote:He was a Democratic-Republican. He had both sides covered.obucard wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be in the Democratic party, either.
Completely off-topic, but isn't it weird that he and John Adams both died on the same day? The 4th of July to boot? And the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Indepedence signing? That's just crazy.
Paletta was there.wart57 wrote:Crazy, or a conspiracy.......Popeye_Card wrote:He was a Democratic-Republican. He had both sides covered.obucard wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be in the Democratic party, either.
Completely off-topic, but isn't it weird that he and John Adams both died on the same day? The 4th of July to boot? And the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Indepedence signing? That's just crazy.
obucard wrote:BW23 wrote:.JL21 wrote:Popeye_Card wrote:Who am I?
I was a tall, skinny guy, who moved all over the place as a child.
I fought for civil rights
I was a lawyer
I was a state legislator in Illinois, then went to Washington.
I had no executive, military, or foreign policy experience to speak of.
I opposed an unnecessary war, in spite of its popularity.
I ran for president at a time the country was extremely divided.
I don't understand what "optics" means here, but the rest is spot on.The most important thing about a good attack is not the attack itself. It's baiting your opponent to respond the way you want him to respond, because only the things that come out of his mouth will ultimately stick.
Obama seems to be falling into the trap of response-centrism. If only they could respond the right way, they figure, all will be well. But it won't be. Because the game they are playing is reactive. Instead of changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain, all they do is respond, respond, respond. And the story, day after day, is Democratic Presidential nominee responds to Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The optics of that stink for them.
I think it is important to remember what happened today. The overall tone of this thread also shows me that the posters could use the break.docellis wrote:fulldeck wrote:I think this is a good idea.AJ wrote:Can't you lock this thread for a day? Even the campaigns did.
Why?
Are you saying we need a time out?fulldeck wrote:I think it is important to remember what happened today. The overall tone of this thread also shows me that the posters could use the break.docellis wrote:fulldeck wrote:I think this is a good idea.AJ wrote:Can't you lock this thread for a day? Even the campaigns did.
Why?
good analysis.ghostrunner wrote:So, I caught this on Andrew Sullivan's site. He quotes a conservative blogger who says this:
I don't understand what "optics" means here, but the rest is spot on.The most important thing about a good attack is not the attack itself. It's baiting your opponent to respond the way you want him to respond, because only the things that come out of his mouth will ultimately stick.
Obama seems to be falling into the trap of response-centrism. If only they could respond the right way, they figure, all will be well. But it won't be. Because the game they are playing is reactive. Instead of changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain, all they do is respond, respond, respond. And the story, day after day, is Democratic Presidential nominee responds to Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The optics of that stink for them.
If there is dirt on Palin, get it. Expose it, leak it, whatever. And I mean dirt. Not she said one thing and did another. That's not going to cut it in this day and age. Everyone expects that of politicians. Not "she's against stem cells." That's not a surprise. Spokespeople and Biden can talk about the bridge if they must, but only them.
But for god's sake, she's the vice presidential candidate. Obama's the frontrunner, or should be. You cannot beat John McCain trying to sink his running mate. Stop talking about Sarah Palin. Every bit of press she gets only makes her more important. Obama has only exacerbated this lipstick junk by responding to it. He never should have said it in the first place, and not because it could be misconstrued as offensive.
When Hillary would do this, he would issue a dismissive statement and let it roll off his back. That was a much tougher race than this one should be. Right now he's acting scared of a VP candidate. If I were his campaign manager I would tell him this and threaten to quit if he didn't do it. McCain's people are throwing chum in the water, and he's going right after it.
Obama saw Hillary as a threat. Rightfully so. I don't think he nor his camp viewed McCain that way. And they were totally unprepared for Palin. (Who wasn't?)ghostrunner wrote:So, I caught this on Andrew Sullivan's site. He quotes a conservative blogger who says this:
I don't understand what "optics" means here, but the rest is spot on.The most important thing about a good attack is not the attack itself. It's baiting your opponent to respond the way you want him to respond, because only the things that come out of his mouth will ultimately stick.
Obama seems to be falling into the trap of response-centrism. If only they could respond the right way, they figure, all will be well. But it won't be. Because the game they are playing is reactive. Instead of changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain, all they do is respond, respond, respond. And the story, day after day, is Democratic Presidential nominee responds to Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The optics of that stink for them.
If there is dirt on Palin, get it. Expose it, leak it, whatever. And I mean dirt. Not she said one thing and did another. That's not going to cut it in this day and age. Everyone expects that of politicians. Not "she's against stem cells." That's not a surprise. Spokespeople and Biden can talk about the bridge if they must, but only them.
But for god's sake, she's the vice presidential candidate. Obama's the frontrunner, or should be. You cannot beat John McCain trying to sink his running mate. Stop talking about Sarah Palin. Every bit of press she gets only makes her more important. Obama has only exacerbated this lipstick junk by responding to it. He never should have said it in the first place, and not because it could be misconstrued as offensive.
When Hillary would do this, he would issue a dismissive statement and let it roll off his back. That was a much tougher race than this one should be. Right now he's acting scared of a VP candidate. If I were his campaign manager I would tell him this and threaten to quit if he didn't do it. McCain's people are throwing chum in the water, and he's going right after it.
This might work better:wart57 wrote:Are you saying we need a time out?fulldeck wrote:I think it is important to remember what happened today. The overall tone of this thread also shows me that the posters could use the break.docellis wrote:fulldeck wrote:I think this is a good idea.AJ wrote:Can't you lock this thread for a day? Even the campaigns did.
Why?
