The naivete of some DUers is amazing to me

[senseandsensibility]

I hear the breathless predictions of how our candidate will surge ahead in the polls once the corporate media starts doing negative stories on McCain. They really think it's going to happen.

It's not. There will be thirty second blurbs once a week (if that) about McCain's very legitimate ethical, personal, and political baggage. It will not increase as we near the election, or as "people" get to know him, or as the "media" digs further. It just won't.

Think back to the 2000 election. Chimp had very serious baggage and ethical problems. Gore had very little. The negative press was something like three hundred to one against Gore. (No link for that one)! However, anyone who paid attention remembers.

Our candidate and the Dems will have to hit McCain if it is to be done at all. And I think we all know how that one will work out, too.

I would love to be wrong about this. But I'm not.:(

[DeeDeeNY]

1. In addition to the corporate media

There will also be Diebold.

(Al Franken in his book "Lying Liars.." quoted the study on negative press for Gore in 2000 and you are right, it was very high.)

[Benhurst]

2. Wrong --

and we'll both be happy.

Unfortunately, I think you are right.

[Faygo Kid]

3. Naivete. Not naivety.

Heads up to edit, so as not to detract from the point of your post.

[senseandsensibility]

8. Thanks

I guess spellcheck doesn't work when it's the wrong word to begin with. :blush:
Edited to add that according to dictionary.com naivety and naivete are the same thing.:shrug:

[JoFerret]

11. boneheaded fits even better

and less confusing on the spelling front

[senseandsensibility]

12. LOL

You're right. That's what I get for attempting to be highbrow.

[MadBadger]

4. I think our candidate will surge ahead in the polls but for a different reason

The dem party is very split right now and because of these loyalties to Obama or Clinton, I think this may be influencing their support by some points in these GE matchups. I think once we have a nominee, and the other candidate comes out and endorses the other, I think some of those lower-income white dems and the black dems that would either defect or stay home will support the nominee.

[Misanthrope2]

5. Sad but true.

I think you have it exactly right.

Maybe the tide can be turned with corporate money? I don't know any other way.

[StClone]

6. Old Man McCain shaking his cane

At Obama as some young whipper-snapper, admonishing him to listen. McCain, the tortured hero, is known for giving full body upright massages to Bush and his War. What's to listen to? His comic knowledge of Al Qaeda training grounds in Iran?

I think a good number of the ill-informed public will scratch their asses as they see for themselves. Some old white guy whose obscure claims to fame aren't worth the risk of another Republican fiasco. McCain is a mess dressed up in gray hair and chipmunk cheeks. He isn't much more than that. Obama is just getting going. McCain is at the end of days. America don't need some old white guy to lead a country as young and diverse as America with ideas that are so much of the failed past.

[kentuck]

7. True...

Because if either Hillary or Obama had said what McCain said in Jordan about al Qaeda being trained in Iran, that would have been the end of their race. They would have lost all credibility.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Probably true, BUT

I think sometimes people underestimate the power of the Internet to make and end run around some of this stuff. I know I talk to people all the time (granted, it's Portland) who know the "back" story behind these smears and can see through the corporate media's crap.

[kiva]

10. Yes, there seem to be some rose-colored glasses being worn here.

I've seen some scary assumptions here--McCain is too old, voters hate Bush, the MSM is irrelevant in today's internet age--these assumptions could kill us in November. To many of us, McCain's age is a negative, but voters who saw Reagan as a demi-god don't react that way; depending who McCain chooses as a running mate, it may be a non-issue to many voters. Bush's popularity numbers don't mean much, since he's not running--just because people reject him, it doesn't mean they will reject McCain or the Republican party. Finally, we need to remember that we (internet political junkies) are a minority of Americans. Before you jump in and point to the number of people who have internet access, ask yourself what they do with that access: shop? go to non-political discussion boards? download porn? check out the latest entertainment gossip? Face it, the majority of voters continue to get their information (what little it is) from TV news, newspapers, sound bites while they are driving to and from work, and from friends.

I'm not saying that all is lost, only reminding a few that we haven't won yet--this election is ours to win (or lose), and we'd best remember that fact.

[depakid]

13. "the Dems will have to hit McCain if it is to be done at all."

That's absolutely correct.

McCain is the corporate media's annointed one and they're going to spin EVERY story, support every narrative and ignore every irrational policy the Republicans have imposed- with McCain's backing.

Americans need to understand that the CEO's and senior news editors have lost every semblance of ethics in their professions- and NO CAMPAIGN can win unless it also fights back- and yes, fights dirty.

Whether anyone likes that or not- that's just the way it is- and has been for over 20 years.