John McCain on Letterman the other night committed an early gaffe in his presidential campaign, saying:

Quote:"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

You may recall, Barrack Obama was absolutely skewered by right wing media for the following comment, coming right after he announced his candidacy:

Quote:"[A war that] should have never been waged. And to which we have now spent $400 billion and it's seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

We'll see if McCain gets the same media criticism from the same sources.

For what its worth, this is Obama's answer to a question on the matter at an unrelated press conference:

Quote:"Well,you know, as somebody who has had the same phrase in a speech -- you know, I think that nobody would question Senator McCain's dedication to our veterans.

And I think that, you know, it -- what both he and I have simply tried to express is that when you give a mission to our extraordinarily brave soldiers that's not thought through, it's a failure of civilian leadership. And we have a duty, a sacred duty to make sure that we are honoring their sacrifice by giving them missions in which they can succeed. I'm positive that was the intent in which he meant it. It was the same intent that I had when I made my statement.

You know, John McCain and I may have disagreements. The one area that I don't think he can be questioned is his dedication to American troops. He's been there, he's done that."

Classy response by Obama, I thought. Actually I'm currently in the middle of his book "The Audacity of Hope" -- which is quite good and very non-partisan in tone -- and one of the things he mentions frequently is that our politics focuses too much and too cynically on the latest gaffes, and how there is a tendency on the part of the media and spin-masters and politicians on both sides to jump on the latest speaking error or flubbed line, and exploit it for divisive purposes -- even when they know it is not representative of what the person thinks. He argues that this is one of the reasons why our politics have become so bitter and so meaningless at the same time. I am inclined to agree with him.

Nothing against he main point of you post, OUG, but the word "classy" really bothers me. I really don't like it in politics. I don't think there is much of it there. Almost every campaign has some form of misrepresenting people's positions or out and out lies about other candidates. This is Obama trying to take a swipe back at those who attacked his positions. He has an opportunity to make them look like hypocrites and he's doing it. I'm not sure that's classy.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Nothing against he main point of you post, OUG, but the word "classy" really bothers me. I really don't like it in politics. I don't think there is much of it there. Almost every campaign has some form of misrepresenting people's positions or out and out lies about other candidates. This is Obama trying to take a swipe back at those who attacked his positions. He has an opportunity to make them look like hypocrites and he's doing it. I'm not sure that's classy.

That's understandable, but honestly, from reading his book, it definitely fits in with his thoughts on politics and what is ailing it.

If he just wanted to make them look like hypocrites, he would say what most politicians would say: "We'll see if the media gives McCain as much trouble as they gave me -- I hope that he hears every bit of the flack that I took from Limbaugh and company... etc"...

I think if you looked at Obama's history as a politician, you would find very little, if any, of the cynical behavior that follows as a rule in most of our politics. Like I said, I can't recommend his book enough, whether you are liberal or conservative, it takes a very universal perspective on what has happened in our country over the last 15 years or so, particularly in how our political culture has declined. There's definitely the underlying theme that the Baby Boom generation allowed their cultural battles from the late 60's to spill out in a psychodramatic way starting with Clinton's administration -- which marked the rise of that generation to political power. That a lot of the way we talk about issues today, and the nature of our debates, can be traced back to the turbulent times of Vietnam and Woodstock and the social upheaval that took place during the Boomer's formative years. It kind of explains Obama's appeal among younger people -- the idea is that the newer generation just wants to get past that crap and turn the page. We'll see how far this dynamic can carry his campaign.

Classy response by Obama, I thought. Actually I'm currently in the middle of his book "The Audacity of Hope" -- which is quite good and very non-partisan in tone -- and one of the things he mentions frequently is that our politics focuses too much and too cynically on the latest gaffes, and how there is a tendency on the part of the media and spin-masters and politicians on both sides to jump on the latest speaking error or flubbed line, and exploit it for divisive purposes -- even when they know it is not representative of what the person thinks. He argues that this is one of the reasons why our politics have become so bitter and so meaningless at the same time. I am inclined to agree with him.[/quote]

Agreed. One sentence by a campaign hopeful turns into a mantra by the opposition. I find it very childish and annoying. As a result we don't get the best candidate elected. If you can't look at the whole of what someone is saying and block out the stupid spin doctor garbage, you shouldn't be voting.