Calling McCain dishonorable is a disservice to the truth
I am raging mad and furious with the way the Obama campaign has been so negative lately.
They continue to use negative prefixes in reference to McCain's campaign.
The worst of these is the word dishonorable.
The most negative aspect of this word is that it makes Obama sound like he's playing defense. Like he really was so naïve as to think McCain would be honorable, and now he's complaining. "Hey wait, that's not in the script!" Furthermore, language more appropriate for the Harvard Law Review is not going to save America from Republicans and international terrorism.
Instead of accusing McCain and his campaign of not being what they are supposed to be, Obama should define McCain for what he is.
The next time McCain runs a TV ad that sinks to a new low in disingenuousness, don't call it that. Responding that way doesn't grab headlines, and even if it did, "Obama calls Republican TV ad 'disingenuous'" is exactly how Fox would write it because it sounds elitist for the choice of lexicon and like he's whining and not in it to win.
Instead, call it "cowardly." It would be a "take charge" reaction that would get headlines and dominate the day.
At the presidential debates, Obama should find the opportunity to call McCain a "liar" and a "coward." This would make him look ready to be commander-in-chief, dominate the postgame headlines, and maybe even have the added effect of making McCain blow his top on national television.
In East Asian philosophy the "negative methods" is employed when something cannot be defined. When it can't be defined, the approach is to list all the things that it is not. Is Obama unable to define the McCain we've seen as of late and call him what he is, instead of calling him what he isn't?
They continue to use negative prefixes in reference to McCain's campaign.
The worst of these is the word dishonorable.
The most negative aspect of this word is that it makes Obama sound like he's playing defense. Like he really was so naïve as to think McCain would be honorable, and now he's complaining. "Hey wait, that's not in the script!" Furthermore, language more appropriate for the Harvard Law Review is not going to save America from Republicans and international terrorism.
Instead of accusing McCain and his campaign of not being what they are supposed to be, Obama should define McCain for what he is.
The next time McCain runs a TV ad that sinks to a new low in disingenuousness, don't call it that. Responding that way doesn't grab headlines, and even if it did, "Obama calls Republican TV ad 'disingenuous'" is exactly how Fox would write it because it sounds elitist for the choice of lexicon and like he's whining and not in it to win.
Instead, call it "cowardly." It would be a "take charge" reaction that would get headlines and dominate the day.
At the presidential debates, Obama should find the opportunity to call McCain a "liar" and a "coward." This would make him look ready to be commander-in-chief, dominate the postgame headlines, and maybe even have the added effect of making McCain blow his top on national television.
In East Asian philosophy the "negative methods" is employed when something cannot be defined. When it can't be defined, the approach is to list all the things that it is not. Is Obama unable to define the McCain we've seen as of late and call him what he is, instead of calling him what he isn't?
Advertisement
I'm not sure I agree when it comes to "dishonorable." It's kind of a loaded word. It's a military man gone bad, which is good here.
In general, though, I like your advice. For example, when the campaign used the word "perverse" in the sex-ed ad response, it stood out, and it did seem to be the word the hair-dos latched onto.
You can't overdo it, or it comes to lose impact. But the Obama folks have a good bit of room left before they reach that saturation point.
September 11, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
By allowing his sex ed ad about Obama to be made public, McCain has proven that he is a perverted, lying, disgusting, weak, dirty, old man!
How's that!
September 11, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
McSame is a guttersniping liar. Is that why he failed in his mission, and was captured by the enemy?
Is that why he allows himself to be lied about as being a "hero"?
(I can say anything I want: I'm not running for election. If I were running for president, I would have to show something more than the ability to speack in absolutist terms, such as "liar," instead of something more "diplomatic".)
September 11, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink