New Shameless Obama ad mocks McCain

[Melbel]

The newest ad showcasing Obama's new hard line includes unflattering footage of McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.

"1982, John McCain goes to Washington," an announcer says over chirpy elevator music. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't.

As part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):


McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Also, Jacob Weisberg, in an article in Slate in 2000 stated: "Six months ago, no one would have pegged McCain as the most cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates. At 63, he is the oldest of the bunch and because of his war injuries, he is limited in his ability to wield a keyboard."

I personally am outraged by this classless attack on an honorable man who suffered severe injuries while serving his country. Regardless of your political affiliation, I hope others are outraged as well. I am saddened to think that there are others on this board who may find it comical.

ETA: "may" find it comical.

[Wife_and_mommy]

I knew he couldn't raise his arms but didn't realize how handicapped he was. I do wonder how he gets by in business without using a computer but to mock him for it when it's due to injuries is heartless. Have some respect.

[laurenj]

You make a good point; it is tacky for Obama to attack McCain for something he can't do anything about, and it also makes his campaign look very uninformed if they didn't find out that's why he can't use a keyboard. However, wouldn't you agree that the McCain campaign got dirty first by mocking Obama as "the one" and "a celebrity" in recent ads, as well as attacking him for being a community organizer, a career which I think very few of us would condemn?

[mamicka]

I personally am outraged by this classless attack on an honorable man who suffered severe injuries while serving his country. Regardless of your political affiliation, I hope others are outraged as well. I am saddened to think that there are others on this board who find it comical.

Totally agree.

[niccig]

I agree, but I also agree that the McCain side has thrown stones. A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

Both sides have thrown stones. And I'm disgusted at ALL of them. I really wish they would talk about the issues rather than trying to drag each other down into the gutter.

My 0.02 worth.

[laurenj]

I agree, but I also agree that the McCain side has thrown stones. A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

Both sides have thrown stones. And I'm disgusted at ALL of them. I really wish they would talk about the issues rather than trying to drag each other down into the gutter.

My 0.02 worth.

well said - you said what i was trying to say, but put it much better! :cheerleader1:

[LarsMal]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1789003018

Here's the link to the video. While the ad does comment that he doesn't know how to send an email it says "John McCain admits" he still doesn't know how to use a computer. The ad is silly and stupid, but I don't think it's a " classless attack" on him, as you put it.

Obama doesn't need to go there, sure, there is plenty of other stuff out there to go after McCain for. He needs to fight back, and fight back hard for all of the crap McCain has put out about him this week, but not being able to send an email or use a computer is pretty stupid, IMO.

As one republican put it, what John McCain is doing in his ads is "dishonorable and disgusting". Obama needs to go after him for that, not this nonsense about not using a computer, especially if it's because of his injuries. (Although, there are ways to use a computer/send email without your hands).

[niccig]

I also think the gutter politics is all about distraction. Let's throw out false truths, mis-statments, character assassinations as it will get press coverage and there won't be any air time left for the ISSUES. I mean, these sensational ad. are more interesting/compelling than one about the economy/health care/housing crisis....

Again, I'm again BOTH sides for gutter politics.

[mamicka]

I've read lots of supposed explanations of how it isn't true & I still don't see how he didn't participate in passing a bill to teach sex ed to k students. He did. OK - age-appropriate sex ed. Doesn't change anything, IMO. I don't see the lie about that.

[niccig]

I've read lots of supposed explanations of how it isn't true & I still don't see how he didn't participate in passing a bill to teach sex ed to k students. He did. OK - age-appropriate sex ed. Doesn't change anything, IMO. I don't see the lie about that.

The ad implies he wants to teach kindergartners how to have sex. Part of the bill was to have kids taught about inappropriate touching...stranger danger. Plus, it's not his ONLY accomplishment in education, but the ad says it is.

I really like the Fact check web site. The ads. used by BOTH campaigns take quotes out of context, make misleading statements etc. Fact check has the ads listed so you can see what is fact and what is being used by the other side to push their message. When I see a political ad. now, I check before I let it sway me one way or the other. Most times, I've been appalled at how the ads. have been made.

ETA. The bill wasn't passed on, nor was he the main sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill.

[srhs]

I agree that both sides have gotten too nasty and too busy "playing politics" to sway voters. Shame on them, and shame on us. I don't think either campaign would do it if it didn't get results. How about that for non partisanship?

[mamicka]

Is the ability to send email actually a skill that is often used by the President? I don't know, I just can't picture the President using email to get business done. I've never been the President, maybe I'm wrong.

[LarsMal]

I've read lots of supposed explanations of how it isn't true & I still don't see how he didn't participate in passing a bill to teach sex ed to k students. He did. OK - age-appropriate sex ed. Doesn't change anything, IMO. I don't see the lie about that.

It was not to teach "sex ed" to k students. It was NOT teaching comprehensive sex ed. It was teaching kids "stranger danger". My last two years of teaching (in a private school) we taught the children- grades K-8- a very similar program. It was in no way a sex education course.

McCain is trying to make Obama out to be a liberal pervert. He is trying to help children recognize sexual predators and stop a child from being molested. John McCain "gross distortion" of the situation is disgusting.

[Georgia]

I personally am outraged by this classless attack on an honorable man who suffered severe injuries while serving his country. Regardless of your political affiliation, I hope others are outraged as well. I am saddened to think that there are others on this board who find it comical.

It is a bit outrageous also though to accept as fact that anyone with the type of physical disabilities McCain is dealing with is unable to use a computer. Stephen Hawking uses a computer. Gov Patterson of NY does not, and he has been criticized by some in the blind community for the message that sends.

[niccig]

Hsa politics ALWAYS been about mud raking and character assassinations? Have there been any political campaigns that weren't? Or are we just more aware now because of Internet, 24 cable TV etc.

I'm asking in a historical perspective.

[Melbel]

Is the ability to send email actually a skill that is often used by the President? I don't know, I just can't picture the President using email to get business done. I've never been the President, maybe I'm wrong.


I have seen references stating that Bill Clinton only sent 2 emails while in office and admitted that he did not know much about the internet. As aptly stated by the National Review:


I don't think the fact that Obama never served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is unqualified to be president because he can't grasp cyber-security issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain campaign can just as easily say Obama can't understand first order national security issues because he's never fired a rife, flown a plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting "send" on AOL or fighting a war?

ETA: I also detest all of the negative ads in general, particularly when they are misleading. Both sides have been guilty IMO. What makes this particular ad so egregious IMO is the very nature of the ad, mocking McCain for not being able to do something due to the injuries he suffered while serving our country.

[Rainbows&Roses]

I think the ad is dumb and I am know Obama himself doesn't like these kind of attacks. He would rather talk about the issues. However, it was shown during the primaries that the negative attack ads influence a certain segment of the population - one that Obama especially needs to win over.

He is facing heavy pressure from his own party to step up the negativity since the other side has become absurd about their attacks. I do not think the dems have stooped to the level of the repubs, but I wish they would both knock it off. I do think Obama refuses to stretch the truth the way his opponent is in the ads. Instead of this dumb ad, maybe he should spend the 60 seconds playing McCain clips and having Obama say "LIE" after each one.

[StantonHyde]

I agree it is tacky--why not take on the issue of McCain trying to cut benefits for veterans or the GOPs appalling lack of support for Iraq war vets. The psych hospital where I work may actually get money to build more beds--just to treat Iraq veterans. They need mental health help.

So yes, where are the ads on the economy, health care, and education??? Those are big issues for me.

Unfortunately, campaigns are aimed at the average voter. I truly wish Americans showed their appreciation for this fundamental freedom (voting) by getting educated and actually showing up at the polling booth. sigh...

[kijip]

I have no use for these kinds of ads liberal or conservative but anybody who think only their side is being attacked in lowest common denominator, stupid ads is not being intellectually honest. We lose so much when knee jerk everything our side does is considered fair and everything to other side does is considered shameless and baseless. Check the facts, McCain ain't no stranger to attack ads. Paris and Brit anyone? And the K sex ed thing- um, focus on ONE grade the bill included, distort the curriculum that it included for that grade AND leave out the parent protections/parent's decision provisions that it included. That's out of context at best and a lie at worst.

That said, I could give a rat's behind if McCain can't use a computer and as an Obama supporter think they could have done a better spot and a better ad. Don't Senators hire people to do that crud for them? Email is a huge waste of work time anyways. :hysterical:

Still, we have these ads on both sides because they seem to work- sad what that says about us, isn't it?

Factcheck.org people, factcheck.org. :)

[icunurse]

First, I think McCain has had many more ads which have been used to attack rather than compare. I'm all for jabs and using statements against people, but to twist and decieve in the way he has with so many of his recent ads (again www.factcheck.org - check out all the McCain/Palin inaccuracies vs Obama/Biden), I am appalled. He said he was going to run a clean campaign and he is very far from that (and two wrongs don't make a right, either.)

Second, you limit yourself as you want to. I know a guy who became a quadraplegic in his teens and went on to become a computer science teacher at a major university. He did not limit himself because of his injury. While I feel badly for McCain, I also think that, if what you have said is true, he is limiting himself. If your spouse or child were injured in a serious way, would you encourage them to just not try or adapt?

Finally, things have changed a lot since even Clinton was in office. Back then, the internet was not the huge thing it is nowadays and emails were not the rage. It appears that many gov officials use emails/blackberry messages a lot these days.


ETA: I do not think the ad mocks his disability, I think it points out how he doesn't even try to adapt to modern advances. I work with plenty of people who because of accidents or guns becaome quadraplegics. The big thing is if they have gross motor movement (meaning at least shoulder movement), they can move their arms in such a way to tap on a keyboard or move their wheelchair. Complete quads (no movement) use their mouth to move their wheelchair or use a mouthpiece to type on a keyboard (or voice programs). Sorry, but I can't believe that with his money and physical therapy and access to services, he couldn't figure out a way to do it if he really wanted to.

[gatorsmom]

It makes me sick to see a disabled person being mocked and ridiculed. Especially disabilities gained in the service of others- including Obama and his followers.

Isn't there something else Obama's camp could have ridiculed? That just makes me cringe.

[kellij]

I'm confused about this comment by op, "I am saddened to think that there are others on this board who find it comical."

Was this in another thread? How do you know that people find it comical? I think most people on this board don't like the mudslinging from either side. I find it disgusting from either side, and a very ugly side of politics.

I am saddened and offended to think that people are judgmental and negative about the board based on assumptions.

[o_mom]

Isn't there something else Obama's camp could have ridiculed? That just makes me cringe.

I think the 1982 combover shot was all they really needed ;)


(And FTR, agreeing with many of the PPs - I think it was a very poor ad, there are more important things to discuss, and many people with disabilities can send e-mail so I'm not sure it is a direct attack on that, but looks really bad after the fact)

[kijip]

including Obama and his followers.



Could we avoid saying followers in reference to a political candidate? It is dismissive. Conservatives were rightfully upset when called Bush followers in the past. I am a thoughtful, educated, well informed person who made the decision to caucus for Obama, volunteer for Obama and give $$ to Obama. Not some mindless follower, fan or person who is otherwise reacting to a cult of personality and not to substantive issues. I assume the same of McCain voters, I don't deride them by calling them followers. Just saying.

[Melbel]

I'm confused about this comment by op, "I am saddened to think that there are others on this board who find it comical."

Was this in another thread? How do you know that people find it comical? I think most people on this board don't like the mudslinging from either side. I find it disgusting from either side, and a very ugly side of politics.

I am saddened and offended to think that people are judgmental and negative about the board based on assumptions.

Most of the people who post here are great. I love all of the parenting advice, product info, bargains, etc. I have been deeply disappointed, however, with the tone of some of the political threads. Individuals have found calling McCain "grandpa" hysterical (ageism). Likewise, individuals found the Palin parody video, showing "Palin" in a star spangled bikini to be very funny notwithstanding blatant sexism. Sadly, based upon these prior posts, I concluded that these individuals (or others) may find mockery based upon disability to be comical as well. The ad itself is trying to be "cute".

[Laurel]

Not being able to use a keyboard does not equal not being able to use a computer. There are many with disabilities who can and do use the internet. I actually find the outrage about that insulting to people with disabilities. Why should we automatically assume that because physically unable to use a keyboard that he flat out can't use the internet? I seriously doubt that the intent of the ad was to mock him for his disability.

To me, McCain's failure to use one of the most major technological advances of his lifetime says a lot. Almost every senior citizen I know has an email account, including my legally blind grandmother.

That being said, I wish we didn't have to suffer through all these silly ads from both sides. They're really gross.

[pb&j]

Second, you limit yourself as you want to. I know a guy who became a quadraplegic in his teens and went on to become a computer science teacher at a major university. He did not limit himself because of his injury. While I feel badly for McCain, I also think that, if what you have said is true, he is limiting himself. If your spouse or child were injured in a serious way, would you encourage them to just not try or adapt?


ETA: I do not think the ad mocks his disability, I think it points out how he doesn't even try to adapt to modern advances. I work with plenty of people who because of accidents or guns becaome quadraplegics. The big thing is if they have gross motor movement (meaning at least shoulder movement), they can move their arms in such a way to tap on a keyboard or move their wheelchair. Complete quads (no movement) use their mouth to move their wheelchair or use a mouthpiece to type on a keyboard (or voice programs). Sorry, but I can't believe that with his money and physical therapy and access to services, he couldn't figure out a way to do it if he really wanted to.

ITA. DH used to work with severely disabled people (quadriplegics, those who had had massive strokes, those with the most severe cerebral palsy, most of whom could not even speak) as a consultant for adaptive technologies that allowed them to use computers to speak, surf the web, etc. There are many, many technologies and adaptive/assistive devices available to help people with all kinds of disabilities and challenges to use computers, and they have been around in one form or another since computers came on the scene 25 years ago.

I absolutely agree that McCain served honorably and made many sacrifices for his country. But that doesn't exempt him from being technologically literate, no matter what his disabilities.

FTR, I haven't seen the ad.

[kijip]

Also, FTR McCain has stated this year that he is actually now learning how to use the computer. So I don't think it is just a matter of his physical limitations- my father has MS and worked on computers for most of the last 20 years of his working life. I think the ad is trite but I don't believe it was an attack on him as a disabled person. To say that it is, is IMO a stretch and an effort to demonize Obama.

[randomkid]

Both sides have thrown stones. And I'm disgusted at ALL of them. I really wish they would talk about the issues rather than trying to drag each other down into the gutter.

My 0.02 worth.

:yeahthat: This is exactly why I don't watch the political cr@p on TV and also why I don't usually post in political threads. The election process has nothing to do with the issues - it's all about who can make the other look bad. They say what they think people want to hear, then when they get in office, they do whatever suits them best. I don't believe a word coming out of any politician's mouth, to be honest.

Just the other night, I told DH that I think the behavior from both sides is unprofessional and immature. They may as well stand up there and stick their tongues out at each other. If they would put as much effort into running this country as they do bashing each other, we'd all be a lot better off.

[Melbel]

In an early 2008 interview, McCain stated that he relies upon his wife for assistance with the computer. Without debating anecdotal accounts of what others with various disabilities can or cannot due, without question, it is much more challenging for McCain to use a keyboard, tie his shoes or comb his hair due to his POW injuries. We certainly can agree to disagree, but IMO the ad inappropriately mocks both his age and indirectly his disability. As I previously stated, I do not like negative ads, and wish both sides would focus on the issues instead.

[icunurse]

In an early 2008 interview, McCain stated that he relies upon his wife for assistance with the computer. Without debating anecdotal accounts of what others with various disabilities can or cannot due, without question, it is much more challenging for McCain to use a keyboard, tie his shoes or comb his hair due to his POW injuries. We certainly can agree to disagree, but IMO the ad inappropriately mocks both his age and indirectly his disability. As I previously stated, I do not like negative ads, and wish both sides would focus on the issues instead.

From this interview with McCain, it sounds like he needs helps from his wife on HOW to use the computer, not because he can't. Again, I think you will see and make of the ad what you want to. Wishing everyone would just stick to big topics, honestly.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11711.html

[gatorsmom]

Could we avoid saying followers in reference to a political candidate? It is dismissive. Conservatives were rightfully upset when called Bush followers in the past. I am a thoughtful, educated, well informed person who made the decision to caucus for Obama, volunteer for Obama and give $$ to Obama. Not some mindless follower, fan or person who is otherwise reacting to a cult of personality and not to substantive issues. I assume the same of McCain voters, I don't deride them by calling them followers. Just saying.


I was once again in a hurry when I typed this. In using the word followers I didn't mean everyone who plans to vote for him. I meant Obama and the people who designed this ad we are discussing. Sorry, I can see now how that would appear dismissive. It was totally not the right word. Had to put kids to bed.

[srhs]

I agree it is tacky--why not take on the issue of McCain trying to cut benefits for veterans or the GOPs appalling lack of support for Iraq war vets. The psych hospital where I work may actually get money to build more beds--just to treat Iraq veterans. They need mental health help.

So yes, where are the ads on the economy, health care, and education??? Those are big issues for me.

Unfortunately, campaigns are aimed at the average voter. I truly wish Americans showed their appreciation for this fundamental freedom (voting) by getting educated and actually showing up at the polling booth. sigh...

In the interest of fairness:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_falsely_attacks_mccain.html
"AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain: It runs an ad claiming McCain voted "against increasing health care benefits for veterans," when he actually voted repeatedly to increase them."

I'm so glad we have a source we can all agree on! And, yes, I accept their debunking of BOTH sides' fabrications, although I take issue with a PP that suggested the "score" was lopsided on this.

ETA: I wanted to clarify I was not saying Obama or his people fabricated this particular story. I am speaking to too many issues at once.

[niccig]

You would think that both campaigns would realize that in the age of the Internet and Youtube, people can check EVERY single thing that they say. Eg. You can say "I did not say XYZ"...we can find a Youtube of an interview when you did say XYZ. Mmmm, I wonder if the Internet will keep them more honest??

[srhs]

You would think that both campaigns would realize that in the age of the Internet and Youtube, people can check EVERY single thing that they say. Eg. You can say "I did not say XYZ"...we can find a Youtube of an interview when you did say XYZ. Mmmm, I wonder if the Internet will keep them more honest??

Good point. You would think it would make people more accountable, but it doesn't seem to at all at this point. Rather, everything is able to be twisted into a convenient soundbite, and opinionated bloggers get taken as experts.

[lisams]

From this article, it appears that he can use the internet. Good for him for learning to use the internet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2403704/John-McCain-technology-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html
When asked if he went online himself, the Arizona senator responded: "They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.

"I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need - including going to my daughter's blog first, before anything else."

[squimp]

Not being able to use a keyboard does not equal not being able to use a computer. There are many with disabilities who can and do use the internet. I actually find the outrage about that insulting to people with disabilities. Why should we automatically assume that because physically unable to use a keyboard that he flat out can't use the internet? I seriously doubt that the intent of the ad was to mock him for his disability.

To me, McCain's failure to use one of the most major technological advances of his lifetime says a lot. Almost every senior citizen I know has an email account, including my legally blind grandmother.


Good point.

While I haven't seen the ad, I did watch Palin's speech, and clearly there is mocking going on from both sides. I wish they didn't feel they have to do the mudslinging.

[KBecks]

It was not to teach "sex ed" to k students. It was NOT teaching comprehensive sex ed. It was teaching kids "stranger danger". My last two years of teaching (in a private school) we taught the children- grades K-8- a very similar program. It was in no way a sex education course.

McCain is trying to make Obama out to be a liberal pervert. He is trying to help children recognize sexual predators and stop a child from being molested. John McCain "gross distortion" of the situation is disgusting.


At least it brings up a real issue, and one of Obama's votes, that people can go and learn more about themselves.

I need to view the Obama ad, but attacking and mocking McCain for a physical limitation is not exploring a "real issue".

If the Obama campaign can't win on the issues, it looks like they are going to use whatever they can. I feel that attacking McCain's disability is low, and I hear -- get to the issues -- all the time. I think this is a slimy topic for an ad and it will probably backfire. People want to hear about the issues. ETA: It would have been nice to see an ad that was just about taxes and gave a little more detail on why Obama is better.

Not to mention that 1982 isn't that long ago, and there are plenty of seniors who don't use email. The Obama campaign is probably sliming to try and win back young voters. I think they will see past this superficiality.

[KBecks]

Could we avoid saying followers in reference to a political candidate? It is dismissive. Conservatives were rightfully upset when called Bush followers in the past. I am a thoughtful, educated, well informed person who made the decision to caucus for Obama, volunteer for Obama and give $$ to Obama. Not some mindless follower, fan or person who is otherwise reacting to a cult of personality and not to substantive issues. I assume the same of McCain voters, I don't deride them by calling them followers. Just saying.

I agree, but I'm just wanting to chat.....

Katie, it's good to see you! How are you doing now? I was wondering about you since being in the hospital. (I was impressed you had a computer and internet access at the hospital, I don't think the hospital I'm delivering at has it but I'm going to re-check!) Anyway, it's good to see you and I hope you are doing better.

[KBecks]

You would think that both campaigns would realize that in the age of the Internet and Youtube, people can check EVERY single thing that they say. Eg. You can say "I did not say XYZ"...we can find a Youtube of an interview when you did say XYZ. Mmmm, I wonder if the Internet will keep them more honest??

Yes and no, people believe what they want to believe. Including people who believe Obama is a practicing Muslim, and people who want to believe that Trigg Palin is not Sarah's baby. I think the internet is good and bad, it can create and spread mis-truths, and it can also provide the truth. But whether people hear, seek and find the truth...... it's not that much clearer.

[Wife_and_mommy]

I agree, but I'm just wanting to chat.....

Katie, it's good to see you! How are you doing now? I was wondering about you since being in the hospital. (I was impressed you had a computer and internet access at the hospital, I don't think the hospital I'm delivering at has it but I'm going to re-check!) Anyway, it's good to see you and I hope you are doing better.

Katie, Hope you and baby are okay...:hug:

[Georgia]

At least it brings up a real issue, and one of Obama's votes, that people can go and learn more about themselves.

I need to view the Obama ad, but attacking and mocking McCain for a physical limitation is not exploring a "real issue".

If the Obama campaign can't win on the issues, it looks like they are going to use whatever they can. I feel that attacking McCain's disability is low, and I hear -- get to the issues -- all the time. I think this is a slimy topic for an ad and it will probably backfire. People want to hear about the issues. ETA: It would have been nice to see an ad that was just about taxes and gave a little more detail on why Obama is better.

Not to mention that 1982 isn't that long ago, and there are plenty of seniors who don't use email. The Obama campaign is probably sliming to try and win back young voters. I think they will see past this superficiality.

I disagree that McCain's unfamiliarity with computer technology is not a real issue. There are many many signs that the next big terrorist attack will be a cyber attack, with terrorists attempting to take down government and financial infrastructure from computers across the world. Russia's invasion of Georgia was preceded by an attack on Georgia's government sites from hackers within Russia. Not using email does not disqualify McCain from understanding threats like this, but it does raise a real issue about how up to speed he is on this national security issue.

Also, I'm not convinced the ad will backfire because of the intense feeling among disability advocates that people with disabilities not be characterized by their limitations. Promoting the idea that McCain is not capable of using a computer because of his physical disabilities is not an attitude these groups would find at all acceptable. And while Republicans used to have the moral high ground on issues involving veterans I'm afraid they squandered some of that good will with the Purple Heart Bandaids of 2004.

(ET clarify)

[Ceepa]

Those ads are really low. And to defend them in even the smallest of ways by saying "well both sides are doing it" or to then take the position that McCain really isn't trying hard enough to use the computer or else that he's somehow doing a disservice to those with different abilities; or to the nation, in general, because a president really should be Internet savvy for the sake of national security? I find this all very interesting.

But hey, at least posters are expressing that people should not hide behind limitations thrust on them by life circumstance and that it's reasonable for them to take personal responsibility for helping themselves. :thumbsup::bighand:

[Globetrotter]

As PP have said, there are other ways to use a computer. I do think it's a minus point for McCain in this day and age, but I don't like the tone of the ad at all. However, I've seen plenty of ads from the other side that were as bad or worse. That, to me, is the worst part about a campaign, those awful negative ads!

As for one about Obama wanting sex ed. in Kg, that was not a real issue because it's not true! Stranger danger education is not sex ed.

[KBecks]

But who is calling McCain incapable? It's the Dems, not McCain.

I think it's a huge stretch to say that McCain will not understand technology issues because he does not use email. He will have a whole staff of people who are tech experts. Being a leader is not so much about understanding the fine details of a tech attack, but being able to ask the right questions and make the right decisions following a tech attack or tech security briefing. Many CEOs don't understand every detail of what R&D is doing, etc. but they get the big picture and ask the right questions and rely on trusted staff recommendations. I don't see how this is any different. It's about leadership, not email. Also, many congresspeople (all?) communicate via US mail with constituents. I always get a formal letter after writing, it's how it's done. McCain can choose to use technology as it suits him. This is about leadership and decision making, it's not about who is running the coolest Web 2.0 presidential campaign, or who is doing online updates via Twitter. Those things are insignificant compared to setting a course for the country, assessing difficult situations and making important decisions in challenging environments.

[Wife_and_mommy]

But hey, at least posters are expressing that people should not hide behind limitations thrust on them by life circumstance and that it's reasonable for them to take personal responsibility for helping themselves. :thumbsup::bighand:

:hysterical: Can I just say I love you?:hysterical:

[srhs]

As PP have said, there are other ways to use a computer. I do think it's a minus point for McCain in this day and age, but I don't like the tone of the ad at all. However, I've seen plenty of ads from the other side that were as bad or worse. That, to me, is the worst part about a campaign, those awful negative ads!

As for one about Obama wanting sex ed. in Kg, that was not a real issue because it's not true! Stranger danger education is not sex ed.

"Stranger danger" does not include discussion of STDs.

"But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases."
from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex
education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
of HIV."
from Full Text of SB0099
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

(Edited to remove AIDS (after HIV) and 6 (after K), both of which were struckthrough to indicate the change. The strikethrough text formatting won't show on this forum, it seems.)

[lizajane]

Most of the people who post here are great. I love all of the parenting advice, product info, bargains, etc. I have been deeply disappointed, however, with the tone of some of the political threads. Individuals have found calling McCain "grandpa" hysterical (ageism). Likewise, individuals found the Palin parody video, showing "Palin" in a star spangled bikini to be very funny notwithstanding blatant sexism. Sadly, based upon these prior posts, I concluded that these individuals (or others) may find mockery based upon disability to be comical as well. The ad itself is trying to be "cute".

i thought it was funny when someone called mccain grandpa, not because i agree with ageism, but because of the the context and the wit of the poster. i know she is not ageist and for that reason, i was amused. if she were ageist and meant it as a personal, sincere attack, i would not have found it funny. i do not find mockery based on disability to be comical EVER and i would kindly ask that you do NOT make assumptions about me EVER.

[egoldber]

include discussion of STDs

Age appropriate "discussions" of STDs for K students can include things like: if you see blood or see someone bleeding, tell a teacher or other grown-up and don't touch it yourself, don't share spit (aka "spit swear"), etc.

[mamicka]

Yes, exactly. While some people are comfortable with this, I am not. To me, this is sex-ed to K kids.

[Ceepa]

:hysterical: Can I just say I love you?:hysterical:

Yeah. Though I did edit it now to sound more welcoming to our way of thinking. ;)

[lizajane]

Age appropriate "discussions" of STDs for K students can include things like: if you see blood or see someone bleeding, tell a teacher or other grown-up and don't touch it yourself, don't share spit (aka "spit swear"), etc.

:yeahthat:

[bubbaray]

I haven't seen the ad, but I'm disgusted, but not shocked. Negative ads are the accepted norm in US politics.

FTR, I personally don't think email or computer use is a presidential job requirement. Isn't that what assistants are for?

[srhs]

Age appropriate "discussions" of STDs for K students can include things like: if you see blood or see someone bleeding, tell a teacher or other grown-up and don't touch it yourself, don't share spit (aka "spit swear"), etc.

With all due respect, the context of the wording of the bill is within sex education, not hygiene.
"Course material and instruction shall
stress that sexually transmitted infections diseases are
serious possible hazards of sexual activity or behavior."

(strike "intercourse" after behavior.)
ref: -3- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b, lines 4-7


The same bill discusses drug/alcohol abuse starting at grade 5, so the authors did not use this blanket "age appropriate" statement for all issues. If they wanted to talk about spread of communicable disease, they could've done so sans sex education including STDs.

[egoldber]

But I don't think you know what is actually being taught at each grade level unless you look at the specific curriculum and program. I freely admit I am extrapolating from what is taught in Sarah's school district under the umbrella "Family and Life Education".

They have on their website the topics taught in the curriculum broken out by grade level. At least in her district, although the program exists for all grade levels, specific information about STDs is not taught until 5th grade, which is when many children (myself included) start puberty.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/OMSI/fle/index.htm

Also, these programs always have a parent opt out.

[kijip]

Can I just say that as the mother of a Kindergartner, I am fine with the fact that my child has more knowledge of reproductive functions than the average misinformed/uninformed child much older than him? 5 year olds don't care about sex. But they do care about their bodies, knowing the correct names for body parts and understanding how they came into the world. And that is something I take personal responsibility for teaching but a lot of parents don't. The fundamental fact remains that the bill was not to institute an age inappropriate curriculum to 5 year olds. Also overlooked is the fact that it allowed parents that did not want their children exposed to the class to sign them out. The bill was for K-12, not Kindergarten only. ANY ad that pulls out JUST the K portion for shock value is in fact a dishonest, misleading, low thing to do. The K replaced 6-12? 6th grade is too late to start with many of these topics. I started puberty at age 10. Sex education was appropriate for me at that age. I in fact received sex education in some form from 2nd grade up. I don't consider this a bad thing. In fact in my high school we had comprehensive peer sex education and not only did most of us wait to have sex till college, there were NO pregnancies in my high school. All of the teen moms I knew, ironically enough, I knew through bible camp.

Regarding 5th graders and drug information: 5th graders are about the perfect age to learn about drugs and alcohol- old enough to understand the damage, young enough to be getting the information before drugs are considered cool. A sizable number of kids, especially those in suburbs around my area who have access to $ and their parent's stashes, have flirted with drugs and drinking in middle school. In the 5th grade, my older brother nearly over dosed and died. He was about 15 at the time. I was exactly the right age to internalize the "drugs are NOT ok" message and as a result I have NEVER experimented with any form of drugs, did not drink in high school and have never in fact been particularly drunk.

I am finding it utterly amusing that most liberals here have in fact said this Obama ad is not ok but few conservatives will fess up and admit that McCains ads are in fact very much based in distortion. It's not just 1 or 2 of his ads, many of them are earning critiques on fact check. But people will fundamentally believe what they want to believe, and there is no amount of reasonable discourse that will ever change that.

[srhs]

But I don't think you know what is actually being taught at each grade level unless you look at the specific curriculum and program. I freely admit I am extrapolating from what is taught in Sarah's school district under the umbrella "Family and Life Education".

They have on their website the topics taught in the curriculum broken out by grade level. At least in her district, although the program exists for all grade levels, specific information about STDs is not taught until 5th grade, which is when many children (myself included) start puberty.

http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/OMSI/fle/index.htm

Also, these programs always have a parent opt out.

I understand your perspective, and I did look at your curriculum link. Since this bill didn't pass in IL, I agree we can't really know what the detailed curriculum would've looked like. I do think it's fair to say the wording of the bill required some discussion of STDs and the sexual behaviors that spread them (from 6-12 previously to K-12), which I personally don't find appropriate. "Each class SHALL include..." I am glad the bill provided opt-out, but anyone who's worked in schools, sent their kids to schools, or remember school knows how that goes: "Goofy Janie's mom won't let her watch the cool video."

If another person wants to read the text of the bill, and say, "I'm okay with that. I support that," that is entirely their perogative. I only take issue with saying that the bill says something else, i.e. only stranger danger or appropriate touching or hygiene.

FWIW, I think McCain's ad is wrong to act like the bill was Obama's baby, when he only voted for it, didn't introduce it...and it didn't pass anyway.
I think McCain's people are spinning it into more than it is, and Obama's people are spinning it into less than it is. IMHO

[srhs]

Regarding 5th graders and drug information: 5th graders are about the perfect age to learn about drugs and alcohol- old enough to understand the damage, young enough to be getting the information before drugs are considered cool. A sizable number of kids, especially those in suburbs around my area who have access to $ and their parent's stashes, have flirted with drugs and drinking in middle school. In the 5th grade, my older brother nearly over dosed and died. He was about 15 at the time. I was exactly the right age to internalize the "drugs are NOT ok" message and as a result I have NEVER experimented with any form of drugs, did not drink in high school and have never in fact been particularly drunk.

If this was in response to my post, I think 5th graders should certainly learn about drugs and alcohol. I was personally involved in teaching them as young as 6th, actually. (Well even younger because we took the big kids to teach lessons to the little ones.)
My point was to draw contrast between the K-12 sex ed terminology in the bill and the 5-12 substance abuse ed.

ETA: So sorry that you went through that with your brother! Very scary! Again, I am all for drug/alcohol ed.

[kijip]

I agree, but I'm just wanting to chat.....

Katie, it's good to see you! How are you doing now? I was wondering about you since being in the hospital. (I was impressed you had a computer and internet access at the hospital, I don't think the hospital I'm delivering at has it but I'm going to re-check!) Anyway, it's good to see you and I hope you are doing better.
Yeah, I almost posted that on the health care thread...while some people have NO medical care, I had wireless in my private hospital room that came complete with a jacuzzi tub, a bed for my husband and round the clock food service. Nutty! When it was clear we were staying overnight, J ran home and got my laptop and clothes for all and Foyle's War and Scrubs for the TV/DVD. :)

I am no longer in pain after 5 days of IV antibiotics and three days into a 7 day course of oral antibiotics, so the kidney infection is a blessing in disguise...if I was going to have crushing back pain at least it was something treatable that goes away, rather than something I had to battle for 18 more weeks!

[Globetrotter]

"Stranger danger" does not include discussion of STDs.



The bill mandates sex ed. for K-12. What they teach at each level would be age appropriate and I imagine that they would not cover STDs at the KG level. That would come later and with parental consent. By fifth grade, IMO, they should know the basic facts. The reality is they are going to get them anyway, I and I would rather it come from an objective and factual source.

I feel VERY strongly that if anyone does not sign consent, they must cover it in some way at home. I have no objection to that, as long as it's done. My mom was so conservative (not in the political sense, but she came from a very conservative culture) that she did not sign the consent, I never got the education and I was frightened when I got my period, not knowing what it was!! Other parents may not be involved enough to teach their kids. I imagine the posters here are more educated and in tune with their kids than the average person, but the sad reality is that a lot of parents drop the ball on this, and society and the kids suffer for it.

[srhs]

The bill mandates sex ed. for K-12. What they teach at each level would be age appropriate and I imagine that they would not cover STDs at the KG level. That would come later and with parental consent. By fifth grade, IMO, they should know the basic facts. The reality is they are going to get them anyway, I and I would rather it come from an objective and factual source.

I'm just saying what the bill says. Who are we to say, "Well they really wouldn't do what the bill says they would?"


I feel VERY strongly that if anyone does not sign consent, they must cover it in some way at home. I have no objection to that, as long as it's done. My mom was so conservative (not in the political sense, but she came from a very conservative culture) that she did not sign the consent, I never got the education and I was frightened when I got my period, not knowing what it was!! Other parents may not be involved enough to teach their kids. I imagine the posters here are more educated and in tune with their kids than the average person, but the sad reality is that a lot of parents drop the ball on this, and society and the kids suffer for it.

I agree. I'm certain my parents and ILs will be shocked by all the sex ed DS will get at home. (We're kind of passionate about this issue.) These days, the forms are more opt-out, than opt-in. So, those who aren't as involved, are likely to never think of it. I personally wouldn't opt-out of many sex ed programs for my kiddo(s), but I would one that included these issues at such a young age. And I'll be the goofy parent headed to school to actually look over the curriculum first, so I CAN go over it again at home (and I suppose opt-out if I felt it was objectionable.)

Sorry your mom dropped the ball on this. That must have been really scary. My mom bought a book and acted like it was the worst task of her life as a parent. My pastor recently preached on sex and said, in his years of premarital counseling, only 5 people said their parents had talked to them about sex. YIKES!

ETA: Okay, I'm promising to stay away from this thread for awhile to let others get a word in... Sorry about the big mouth...

[Georgia]

But who is calling McCain incapable? It's the Dems, not McCain.

No I think the people expressing outrage over the ad are calling him incapable. What I'm hearing are people angry about the ad saying "of course he can't use a computer, he's disabled!" Having grown up among advocates for people with disabilities, that was the attitude I was taught was insulting. It seems to me that to be angry at this ad you have to buy into the idea that using a computer is something completely beyond a person with his disabilities. It's not, and I find it frustrating for people to accept that attitude without question.

Perhaps it's too nuanced a position and you're right that the ad will backfire.

[elliput]

As a former moderator for this board, I really, really wish we could steer away from polictical threads. While we are all concerned parents and want the best for our children, I don't think we do any favors for them by getting ourselves worked up over political issues in the same forum in which we brag on their first steps and other fun milestones.

[egoldber]

As a former moderator for this board, I really, really wish we could steer away from polictical threads. While we are all concerned parents and want the best for our children, I don't think we do any favors for them by getting ourselves worked up over political issues in the same forum in which we brag on their first steps and other fun milestones.

Honestly, I don't get this. If political threads get someone worked up, then they should skip them. But many, many people enjoy political conversations and do not get "worked up" about it.

[KBecks]

No I think the people expressing outrage over the ad are calling him incapable. What I'm hearing are people angry about the ad saying "of course he can't use a computer, he's disabled!" Having grown up among advocates for people with disabilities, that was the attitude I was taught was insulting. It seems to me that to be angry at this ad you have to buy into the idea that using a computer is something completely beyond a person with his disabilities. It's not, and I find it frustrating for people to accept that attitude without question.

Perhaps it's too nuanced a position and you're right that the ad will backfire.

You are right in terms of the "excuse" coming from McCain supporters, but I think it is fair that the reality is that keyboard use is difficult and if he prefers not to use email, I personally think, so what? Again, I think it's about leadership, not computer savvy. I have worked with a lot of very successful people who rely on others for tech issues and have come up to speed quite slowly and never to the level of a person whose primary job function is tech.

Another way the ad could backfire is that by pointing out that McCain has been in office since '82, they are showing that McCain has a long track record of experience...... what year did Obama go to Washington? 2000-something?

Anyway, I'll hope the ad isn't effective because I support McCain. We'll find out!

I just had a lovely Obama volunteer stop by the house, and I almost felt bad telling her I was a McCain supporter (with the Mom for McCain sticker on my van clearly visible from the garage). I have been wanting to go make phone calls for McCain but I'm not quite that committed... I think being 35 weeks pregnant is a pretty good excuse, but it's obvious I'm a slacker politically.

[elliput]

I know there are people here who do just this. I am just stating my personal opinion and throwing around an old title.

[Melbel]

No I think the people expressing outrage over the ad are calling him incapable. What I'm hearing are people angry about the ad saying "of course he can't use a computer, he's disabled!" Having grown up among advocates for people with disabilities, that was the attitude I was taught was insulting. It seems to me that to be angry at this ad you have to buy into the idea that using a computer is something completely beyond a person with his disabilities. It's not, and I find it frustrating for people to accept that attitude without question.

Perhaps it's too nuanced a position and you're right that the ad will backfire.

I personally am not calling McCain incapable at all. In addition to making fun of McCain's age, I am outraged by Obama mocking McCain for not doing something that is physically very difficult for him to do. It should be up to the impaired individual to decide how hard to push, and to decide what he/she is truly capable of. McCain has enlisted the help of others to assist him on the computer which should be good enough. Considering that his injuries were sustained due to brutal beatings as a POW while serving this country, the mockery is well beyond common decency IMO.

[Melbel]

i thought it was funny when someone called mccain grandpa, not because i agree with ageism, but because of the the context and the wit of the poster. i know she is not ageist and for that reason, i was amused. if she were ageist and meant it as a personal, sincere attack, i would not have found it funny. i do not find mockery based on disability to be comical EVER and i would kindly ask that you do NOT make assumptions about me EVER.

I personally found calling McCain "grandpa" in the context it was presented, not to mention many other comments in prior threads, to be offensive. It is making fun of McCain based upon his age, plain and simple. I likewise would be offended by comments making fun of someone's gender (i.e. Palin in the bikini ad), race, religion, etc. As an attorney who specializes in employment discrimination, I can tell you that these types of comments/videos would not be accepted in the workplace (not at least with potential for some serious liability).

I assure you that I had no recollection of who made the comments and I do not make assumptions about any individuals on the BBB. I remain saddened, however, by the comments. :cry:

eta: typo

[maestramommy]

I personally am not calling McCain incapable at all. In addition to making fun of McCain's age, I am outraged by Obama mocking McCain for not doing something that is physically very difficult for him to do. It should be up to the impaired individual to decide how hard to push, and to decide what he/she is truly capable of. McCain has enlisted the help of others to assist him on the computer which should be good enough. Considering that his injuries were sustained due to brutal beatings as a POW while serving this country, the mockery is well beyond common decency IMO.

I am starting to get confused. Originally I thought people here were angered because they thought McCain was being unfairly criticized for not using email. The reason was that he has physical disablities/limitations due to wartime torture. Now I am reading that people are angry that the ad seems to be making fun of McCain's physical disabilities/limitations, which I agree is cruel, IF THAT WAS in fact the purpose behind the ad. Is not the purpose of the ad to show that McCain is behind the times in his not being internet savvy? That is quite a ways different from making fun of someone's physical condition, which I refuse to believe possible of either campaign.

[spunkybaby]

In fact in my high school we had comprehensive peer sex education and not only did most of us wait to have sex till college, there were NO pregnancies in my high school. All of the teen moms I knew, ironically enough, I knew through bible camp.

Ummm...how did you know there were *no* pregnancies in your high school? Did you monitor each and every one of the girls' menstrual periods? I understand that there may have been no teen moms in your high school, but that does not necessarily mean that there were no teen pregnancies. It's possible that teens in your school who became pregnant had abortions or miscarriages without your knowledge.

We had sex education in my high school too, and there were several teen moms. Now--you may say the difference is in the type of sex education, but I would also contend that the difference is in the support of teen moms. I heard from a counselor that in my suburb, pregnant teens tended to have and keep their babies, while in the slightly wealthier communities just 15 minutes away, pregnant teens tended to have abortions. So the counselor said that the difference was not really in the number of teen pregnancies but the number of teen abortions. I read your anecdote about the teen mothers you knew from Bible camp as insinuating that these teens did not have proper sex education. Well, perhaps they just received more support to keep and raise their babies.

[Melbel]

I am starting to get confused. Originally I thought people here were angered because they thought McCain was being unfairly criticized for not using email. The reason was that he has physical disablities/limitations due to wartime torture. Now I am reading that people are angry that the ad seems to be making fun of McCain's physical disabilities/limitations, which I agree is cruel, IF THAT WAS in fact the purpose behind the ad. Is not the purpose of the ad to show that McCain is behind the times in his not being internet savvy? That is quite a ways different from making fun of someone's physical condition, which I refuse to believe possible of either campaign.


I do not believe that the purpose of the ad was to overty make fun of McCain's physical disabilities/limitations. However, by mocking someone for not doing something that is physically difficult for them (i.e. use a keyboard), it is insensitive, inappropriate and indirectly makes fun of the disability/limitation IMO. I do believe that the ad overtly makes fun of McCain's age. It was an incredibly weak angle to begin with, and IMO, was not worth going there.

[crayonblue]

Ummm...how did you know there were *no* pregnancies in your high school? Did you monitor each and every one of the girls' menstrual periods? I understand that there may have been no teen moms in your high school, but that does not necessarily mean that there were no teen pregnancies. It's possible that teens in your school who became pregnant had abortions or miscarriages without your knowledge.

We had sex education in my high school too, and there were several teen moms. Now--you may say the difference is in the type of sex education, but I would also contend that the difference is in the support of teen moms. I heard from a counselor that in my suburb, pregnant teens tended to have and keep their babies, while in the slightly wealthier communities just 15 minutes away, pregnant teens tended to have abortions. So the counselor said that the difference was not really in the number of teen pregnancies but the number of teen abortions. I read your anecdote about the teen mothers you knew from Bible camp as insinuating that these teens did not have proper sex education. Well, perhaps they just received more support to keep and raise their babies.

Thank you. I totally agree with you. If anyone wants to compare "bible camp" kids who supposedly did not receive adequate sex-ed and those who supposedly got good sex-ed, you need to look at abortion rates rather than just assuming that only the bible camp girls got pregnant.

[Georgia]

Yes I am one of those crazy liberals who believe both in bootstraps and the Americans with Disabilities Act. :) Under ADA it is perfectly reasonable to disqualify someone who does not know how to use a computer from a job if it is a necessary part of doing that job. What's not ok is disqualifying someone who just can't use a keyboard. Businesses are required to make reasonable accommadations for people with disabilities--providing voice recognition software for someone who can't use a keyboard for example--but not to hire people who can't perform the job duties. It's certainly arguable whether computer literacy is an important part of the presidential job description. In my view it is, but i am obviously not the only one doing the hiring :).

[KBecks]

Ummm...how did you know there were *no* pregnancies in your high school? Did you monitor each and every one of the girls' menstrual periods? I understand that there may have been no teen moms in your high school, but that does not necessarily mean that there were no teen pregnancies. It's possible that teens in your school who became pregnant had abortions or miscarriages without your knowledge.

We had sex education in my high school too, and there were several teen moms. Now--you may say the difference is in the type of sex education, but I would also contend that the difference is in the support of teen moms. I heard from a counselor that in my suburb, pregnant teens tended to have and keep their babies, while in the slightly wealthier communities just 15 minutes away, pregnant teens tended to have abortions. So the counselor said that the difference was not really in the number of teen pregnancies but the number of teen abortions. I read your anecdote about the teen mothers you knew from Bible camp as insinuating that these teens did not have proper sex education. Well, perhaps they just received more support to keep and raise their babies.

Excellent point!!!!! :applause:

Sorry about the pile-on! I am putting together Alek's flashlights for his b-day goodie bags while reading this. The boys loved the Playmobil set we got to try out... the pieces are soooooo tiny though! I totally want the Playmobil nativity set, at $18 I think it will be a great deal.

[Georgia]

I just had a lovely Obama volunteer stop by the house, and I almost felt bad telling her I was a McCain supporter (with the Mom for McCain sticker on my van clearly visible from the garage). I have been wanting to go make phone calls for McCain but I'm not quite that committed... I think being 35 weeks pregnant is a pretty good excuse, but it's obvious I'm a slacker politically.

Some friends of mine volunteer pretty heavily for the Obama campaign and have invited me to a couple phone banks and a bake sale and I have yet to go :(. And you have a MUCH better excuse than I do. So instead I work thorugh my political thoughts on a baby message board...how lame-o is that??? I live in an all blue area so everyone I can find IRL just agrees with me, and while that's comforting it's not very intellectually challenging.

I did not find the ad "shameless" but I will agree with you that he risks alienating older voters with it--and they're a sizable (and reliable) chunk of the voting population.

[KBecks]

Some friends of mine volunteer pretty heavily for the Obama campaign and have invited me to a couple phone banks and a bake sale and I have yet to go :(. And you have a MUCH better excuse than I do. So instead I work thorugh my political thoughts on a baby message board...how lame-o is that??? I live in an all blue area so everyone I can find IRL just agrees with me, and while that's comforting it's not very intellectually challenging.

I did not find the ad "shameless" but I will agree with you that he risks alienating older voters with it--and they're a sizable (and reliable) chunk of the voting population.

Are you in a swing state? I'm hoping my state will flip, our races are very very close.... We put together the baby's nursery today and so I skipped a big calling event that would have been fairly easy to do. I did go out once door to door for a governor's race and hand out flyers, but that was pre-kids.

I wonder what the media buy will be like for this new Obama ad, if it's very targeted. I doubt they would run it on Wheel of Fortune.

I consider the BBB mamas the best and brightest on the net -- we could certainly get a lot done in terms of helping political campaigns.

[fivi2]

Yes I am one of those crazy liberals who believe both in bootstraps and the Americans with Disabilities Act. :) Under ADA it is perfectly reasonable to disqualify someone who does not know how to use a computer from a job if it is a necessary part of doing that job. What's not ok is disqualifying someone who just can't use a keyboard. Businesses are required to make reasonable accommadations for people with disabilities--providing voice recognition software for someone who can't use a keyboard for example--but not to hire people who can't perform the job duties. It's certainly arguable whether computer literacy is an important part of the presidential job description. In my view it is, but i am obviously not the only one doing the hiring :).


ITA with this post!

[StantonHyde]

First--McCain is Republican, so when I talk about voting for Obama because I don't want programs McCain supports--I do mean the GOP. Is McCain really going to be a complete turnaround from Bush? I would like to see indications that he will be.

As for the sex ed issue, here is a citation from an organization that wants to decrease teen pregnancies etc. The bottom line is that the sex ed that Obama supported is the sex ed that WORKS. As for being too young--age appropriate is just that. I am outreach speaker for Planned Parenthood. The sessions I facilitate for 6th graders in public school is VERY different from the sessions I facilitate in a private facility that treats teens with chemical dependency issues. The GOP---McCain's party has led this debacle of sex education. And it is a position that he and Palin support. And to go so low as to accuse Obama of being a pervert is just beyond.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm

Comprehensive sex education is effective at assisting young people to make healthy decisions about sex and to adopt healthy sexual behaviors.[4,5,6,7 (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm#references)] No abstinence-only-until-marriage program has been shown to help teens delay the initiation of sex or to protect themselves when they do initiate sex.[8,9,10,11 (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm#references)] Yet, the U.S. government has spent over one billion dollars supporting abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.[12 (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm#references)

Again, I don't like the idea of Obama's ad--it is a play to young voters that does not address issues. But then, the 60s movements were founded on "don't trust anyone over 30". Some people like Palin because she is a breath of fresh air. If we are looking for change here, then voting for someone who is young, vibrant etc may be part of the deal--it will be for some people. I think there is a big movement for change in this country. I definitely want change and thus I will not be voting for the party that brought us the last 8 years and the current economy.

[kijip]

Ummm...how did you know there were *no* pregnancies in your high school? Did you monitor each and every one of the girls' menstrual periods? I understand that there may have been no teen moms in your high school, but that does not necessarily mean that there were no teen pregnancies. It's possible that teens in your school who became pregnant had abortions or miscarriages without your knowledge.


I'll grant you that it's possible there were pregnancies I did not know about. However, you'll have to grant me that I went to an exceptionally small school where I was close to nearly everyone, so I believe I have sufficient basis to say that pregnancies were far from common place. Also, I went to school in the middle of one of the poorest areas of my city, wealth was not a factor for my friends and I not becoming parents before age 20- education, self confidence, too little free time and very bright futures were the main factors. It was understood that sex was something to not take lightly and there were lots of open discussions by students of both genders stating why they were not ready to have sex. I know that a number of students did have sex, but it was not the norm in my school. Again- how do I know? Very small school.

Given that the pregnant girls from my bible camp (I went several times a year for almost 5 years in a row!) were mostly kicked out of the house, I'd have to say support is not what allowed them to parent. One lived with my friend's family for a time, as did another who had a number of abortions. They were pretty sad cases, and the long term outcomes for these women and their children has not been good. Again, small community, people talk.

[kijip]

Thank you. I totally agree with you. If anyone wants to compare "bible camp" kids who supposedly did not receive adequate sex-ed and those who supposedly got good sex-ed, you need to look at abortion rates rather than just assuming that only the bible camp girls got pregnant.

As one of those bible camp kids myself, I just want to clarify that I don't look down or make assumptions about them- because I am them, they were/are my peers. Some of them are among my nearest and dearest friends to this day and 1 is in fact my son's godfather. Most of my friends in the city either did not have sex and the minority that had sex used protection. There were few pregnancies in this group. Many of my friends from camp (though not the ones from my city) did not decide to have sex in advance, got carried away and had sex without any protections and in some cases did not have enough information to realize they were pregnant early on. A number of them had abortions, some became mothers. All of this is mere anecdote, but I think of the general attitudes in each group about sex when considering the importance of sex education, be that at home or school.

[kijip]

I personally am not calling McCain incapable at all. In addition to making fun of McCain's age, I am outraged by Obama mocking McCain for not doing something that is physically very difficult for him to do. It should be up to the impaired individual to decide how hard to push, and to decide what he/she is truly capable of. McCain has enlisted the help of others to assist him on the computer which should be good enough. Considering that his injuries were sustained due to brutal beatings as a POW while serving this country, the mockery is well beyond common decency IMO.
Ok, I have watched the ad three times now looking for the attack on his disability and I am not seeing it. McCain's disability does not in fact prevent him from using the computer or keyboard, as he apparently is learning and reads his daughter's blog online etc. The article stating his computer skills are hindered by his disability are 8 years old, seemingly based on speculation and don't seem to contain quotes from McCain verifying that is the reason. At most it could be ageism, but that presupposes that elderly Americans don't use computers. My Grandmother has more than a few years on McCain and she is on the web! My father is nearly the same age as McCain and worked on computers for a long time. Let's not forget it is McCain's generation and my Dad's generation that brought us IBM in the first place.

Do I think the ad is dumb and irrelevant? Hell yeah. I might even be a touch miffed that I donate money and this is the ad I see.:ROTFLMAO: I am just NOT seeing where the ad mocks his POW status or his disability. It is in fact his supporters inferring that he can't use the keyboard and getting upset about the terrible thing Obama's ad supposedly does. It's like ah ha! look at Obama being evil. But it's not evil, it's just dumb. Recent quotes from McCain don't support this notion that he can't use a keyboard. And every McCain supplied information about his disability primarily refers to lifting his arms above his shoulders. As I have seen him sit and shuffle papers at a table with his hands, I assume he can in fact use his hands. I for one am not lifting my arms to tap out this message.

If it was stated by McCain and widely known that he does not use a keyboard or computer due to his disability and Obama ran this ad, I'd see your outrage. But since your candidate can use a keyboard and those tiny cellphone buttons (which he says he uses constantly), I think your outrage is overblown. The ad attacks him for being out of touch with the present day and focuses on something trite, not for not doing something he can't do because of his limitations. FTR, I have a hard time using my cellphone and those tiny buttons. It sounds like I could use lessons from McCain on how to work the darn thing- truly I am a traitor to my generation (I am all of 28) when it comes to cellphone savvy. :)

[bbbmanny123]

Ok, I have watched the ad three times now looking for the attack on his disability and I am not seeing it. McCain's disability does not in fact prevent him from using the computer or keyboard, as he apparently is learning and reads his daughter's blog online etc. The article stating his computer skills are hindered by his disability are 8 years old, seemingly based on speculation and don't seem to contain quotes from McCain verifying that is the reason. At most it could be ageism, but that presupposes that elderly Americans don't use computers. My Grandmother has more than a few years on McCain and she is on the web! My father is nearly the same age as McCain and worked on computers for a long time. Let's not forget it is McCain's generation and my Dad's generation that brought us IBM in the first place.

Do I think the ad is dumb and irrelevant? Hell yeah. I might even be a touch miffed that I donate money and this is the ad I see.:ROTFLMAO: I am just NOT seeing where the ad mocks his POW status or his disability. It is in fact his supporters inferring that he can't use the keyboard and getting upset about the terrible thing Obama's ad supposedly does. It's like ah ha! look at Obama being evil. But it's not evil, it's just dumb. Recent quotes from McCain don't support this notion that he can't use a keyboard. And every McCain supplied information about his disability primarily refers to lifting his arms above his shoulders. As I have seen him sit and shuffle papers at a table with his hands, I assume he can in fact use his hands. I for one am not lifting my arms to tap out this message.

If it was stated by McCain and widely known that he does not use a keyboard or computer due to his disability and Obama ran this ad, I'd see your outrage. But since your canidate can use a keyboard and those tiny cellphone buttons (which he says he uses constantly), I think your outrage is overblown. The ad attacks him for being out of touch with the present day and focuses on something trite, not for not doing something he can't do because of his limitations.

:yeahthat:

[Melbel]

Yes I am one of those crazy liberals who believe both in bootstraps and the Americans with Disabilities Act. :) Under ADA it is perfectly reasonable to disqualify someone who does not know how to use a computer from a job if it is a necessary part of doing that job. What's not ok is disqualifying someone who just can't use a keyboard. Businesses are required to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities--providing voice recognition software for someone who can't use a keyboard for example--but not to hire people who can't perform the job duties. It's certainly arguable whether computer literacy is an important part of the presidential job description. In my view it is, but i am obviously not the only one doing the hiring :).

This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, you argue that you believe that "computer literacy is an important part of the presidential job description." Under the ADA, an individual must be able to perform the essential functions of the job — the fundamental job duties of the position he or she holds or desires — with or without reasonable accommodation. The test is not whether a function is an "important part", rather the function at issue must be "essential." The term "essential" has been defined and explained by the Department of Labor as well as the courts. In short, a job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, such as the job exists to perform that function; the function requires specialized skills or expertise and the person is hired for that expertise; or there is only a limited number of employees to perform the function. Without getting bogged down in a full blown legal discussion, independent use of the computer is not an essential job function for the president. There are trained technicians and administrators to perform these functions. Not to mention, President Clinton admitted to only sending a couple of emails as president, and knew very little about the internet, which shows that it was not essential. The internet and email were certainly prevalent and important during Clinton's presidency. Similar to McCain, Clinton had others to assist him with the computer as needed. Indeed, he had his expert, Al Gore, who "invented" the internet to help him! :hysterical:

Second, your argument is contradictory. On one hand, you state that you would disqualify McCain from the job of president because you believe computer literacy is an "important part" of the presidential job description. On the other, you state that he could do the job with reasonable accommodation (i.e. voice recognition software), thus he would not be disqualified. Additionally, I would argue that even assuming that computer literacy is essential to the job of president, allowing others (i.e. staff, his wife, his daughter) to assist him is a reasonable accommodation.

Although McCain is able to use the keyboard on a limited basis, it is quite difficult for him to do so. To the extent that he has a reason to know or find something on the computer, he has experts or family members to assist him as needed. Apparently, Obama does not feel that these reasonable accommodations are good enough and instead chose to mock McCain for not independently using the computer. Even if the ad does not directly mock McCain's disabilities, those familiar with McCain's injuries will certainly make the connection.

[Sillygirl]

Oh for God's sake. Fine, all Democrats, everywhere, are evil for laughing at a crippled war hero who is chronologically gifted as we swan around in our Volvos and drink French wine. Great. Now, perhaps, can we talk about some real issues facing this country, like the collapse of the economy, the seventh year of an interminable war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our increasing alienation from former allies, our need for energy independence, the forty million plus Americans without health insurance? Or would that be too difficult?

[crayonblue]

As one of those bible camp kids myself, I just want to clarify that I don't look down or make assumptions about them- because I am them, they were/are my peers. Some of them are among my nearest and dearest friends to this day and 1 is in fact my son's godfather. Most of my friends in the city either did not have sex and the minority that had sex used protection. There were few pregnancies in this group. Many of my friends from camp (though not the ones from my city) did not decide to have sex in advance, got carried away and had sex without any protections and in some cases did not have enough information to realize they were pregnant early on. A number of them had abortions, some became mothers. All of this is mere anecdote, but I think of the general attitudes in each group about sex when considering the importance of sex education, be that at home or school.

This is why anecdote doesn't really work. I had the exact opposite experience from you. Not one of my "bible camp" friends had sex before marriage. Not one. And plenty of my other friends had sex and some even got pregnant.

[Georgia]

No, I'm not in a swing state, so I'm spared all of the political ads on tv. I watched this one on youtube and it made me wonder where it's playing also. I've heard that both campaigns are creating viral ads that they only intend to use online, so maybe this is one of them. But I've heard it specifically described as a television ad so that's probably not the case. And Wheel of Fortune would probably be a very poor media buy!

[mommy111]

Oh for God's sake. Fine, all Democrats, everywhere, are evil for laughing at a crippled war hero who is chronologically gifted as we swan around in our Volvos and drink French wine. Great. Now, perhaps, can we talk about some real issues facing this country, like the collapse of the economy, the seventh year of an interminable war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our increasing alienation from former allies, our need for energy independence, the forty million plus Americans without health insurance? Or would that be too difficult?
Cheerin you on as I drink my French wine (burp), you evil democrat, you!!!!

[maestramommy]

Oh for God's sake. Fine, all Democrats, everywhere, are evil for laughing at a crippled war hero who is chronologically gifted as we swan around in our Volvos and drink French wine. Great. Now, perhaps, can we talk about some real issues facing this country, like the collapse of the economy, the seventh year of an interminable war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our increasing alienation from former allies, our need for energy independence, the forty million plus Americans without health insurance? Or would that be too difficult?

:bighand:Thank you for getting us back on track! Perhaps someone would like to take the initiative in starting a thread about the real issues instead of the bunny trails?

[Laurel]

Oh for God's sake. Fine, all Democrats, everywhere, are evil for laughing at a crippled war hero who is chronologically gifted as we swan around in our Volvos and drink French wine. Great. Now, perhaps, can we talk about some real issues facing this country, like the collapse of the economy, the seventh year of an interminable war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our increasing alienation from former allies, our need for energy independence, the forty million plus Americans without health insurance? Or would that be too difficult?

Another proud liberal elitist here who would like to talk about these issues with the brilliant BBB members!

I'll admit, it's soooo easy to just go back and forth on the more juicy tidbits and silly attacks. Really though, I'd love to see a serious thread on the above topics.

[Melbel]

AAAAH, focusing on the REAL issues. This has been my theme throughout numerous threads. Instead of focusing on McCain's age or physical limitations, instead of focusing on Palin's gender or family, let's focus on the real issues facing our country and the proposed solutions. It is nice to see that we can actually agree on something!

:yay:

[Laurel]

Maybe a thread where we talked about an issue and did NOT mention the candidates would keep us on topic? What if we just discussed how we feel and what we think needs to happen and kept discussion of the candidates out of it?

[srhs]

Maybe a thread where we talked about an issue and did NOT mention the candidates would keep us on topic? What if we just discussed how we feel and what we think needs to happen and kept discussion of the candidates out of it?

This is a lofty goal but likely impossible to police, right?

Actually, I've been wondering what the moms on here think of the recent statement by a candidate that education is the civil rights issue of our generation, but I didn't want to post it because of the partisan responses it may bring. Maybe that's a consideration for discussion?

[Laurel]

Well, hard to police, yes, but I'd be willing to go with the honor system.

Education would be a great place to begin...I don't know that starting with a quote by a candidate and asking for reactions would be in the spirit of the type of thread I'm thinking of. I'm more interested in what y'all think of our public schools, of current education policy and what the future should look like.

[srhs]

Well, hard to police, yes, but I'd be willing to go with the honor system.

Education would be a great place to begin...I don't know that starting with a quote by a candidate and asking for reactions would be in the spirit of the type of thread I'm thinking of. I'm more interested in what y'all think of our public schools, of current education policy and what the future should look like.

No, I agree. I was just saying that's what made me think of it. Remove the partisan context.

[gatorsmom]

Oh for God's sake. Fine, all Democrats, everywhere, are evil for laughing at a crippled war hero who is chronologically gifted as we swan around in our Volvos and drink French wine. Great. Now, perhaps, can we talk about some real issues facing this country, like the collapse of the economy, the seventh year of an interminable war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our increasing alienation from former allies, our need for energy independence, the forty million plus Americans without health insurance? Or would that be too difficult?

Ok, while I don't think it's very nice to pick on my guy like that, I firmly agree that it would be fantastic to start some indepth discussions on the real issues mentioned above. Oh, and pass around that bottle! :)

[octmom]

AAAAH, focusing on the REAL issues. This has been my theme throughout numerous threads. Instead of focusing on McCain's age or physical limitations, instead of focusing on Palin's gender or family, let's focus on the real issues facing our country and the proposed solutions. It is nice to see that we can actually agree on something!

:yay:

Pointing out the obvious here, but didn't you start this thread that was not about a REAL issue?

Going back to sitting on my fingers now... ;)

[psophia17]

Pointing out the obvious here, but didn't you start this thread that was not about a REAL issue?


:yeahthat:

[Ceepa]

[QUOTE=octmom]Pointing out the obvious here, but didn't you start this thread that was not about a REAL issue?
QUOTE]

:yeahthat:

Never mind. Not worth it.

[Melbel]

Pointing out the obvious here, but didn't you start this thread that was not about a REAL issue?

Going back to sitting on my fingers now... ;)


Obviously not in the minds of many here. The Obama camp chose to avoid the real issues and instead ridiculed McCain on protected classifications. I was personally outraged by it and many people felt strongly enough to post. The thread generated some thoughtful debate. I was brave enough to start a thread in very hostile territory that has often bordered on personal attacks toward me. A simple acknowledgment that the ad was in poor taste would have ended the issue. Amazingly, many defended the ad instead.

[psophia17]

Katie, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

[fivi2]

I do not believe that the purpose of the ad was to overty make fun of McCain's physical disabilities/limitations. However, by mocking someone for not doing something that is physically difficult for them (i.e. use a keyboard), it is insensitive, inappropriate and indirectly makes fun of the disability/limitation IMO. I do believe that the ad overtly makes fun of McCain's age. It was an incredibly weak angle to begin with, and IMO, was not worth going there.


So here you say the purpose of the ad was NOT to mock disabilities, but on the next page you say it is to ridicule based on protected clasifications? I am confused...

I have not seen the ad. It sounds as though it is mocking him for not using the computer. period. Many with more severe disabilities can use a computer. He chooses not to. It is up to me as a voter to decide whether I think that makes him unable to do the job. The reason for his inability is irrelevant to me when I am making that decision. As I am not his employer, I doubt that the ADA comes into play (I am not an emplyment atty, so I am not making a legal argument, just saying it seems odd that it would).

I may greatly respect the man for his service and feel badly that he was injured. However, I am allowed to wonder if he has any psychological or physical effects that may make him a less attractive presidential candidate, regardless of how those came about. I am not saying that this disability does factor into MY decision, but I personally don't think anything is off the table when I am choosing the person who will lead this country.

[Melbel]

So here you say the purpose of the ad was NOT to mock disabilities, but on the next page you say it is to ridicule based on protected clasifications? I am confused...


Both age and disability are protected classifications. As previously articulated, the mockery on age was direct, on disability was indirect. The analysis under the ADA was in response to a post suggesting he was not qualified to serve as president due to his disabilities.


I may greatly respect the man for his service and feel badly that he was injured. However, I am allowed to wonder if he has any psychological or physical effects that may make him a less attractive presidential candidate, regardless of how those came about. I am not saying that this disability does factor into MY decision, but I personally don't think anything is off the table when I am choosing the person who will lead this country.

Wow. What evidence is there that McCain has psychological or physical effects that make him less attractive as a candidate? I guess this is the thanks he gets for honorably serving his country.

[fivi2]

Wow. What evidence is there that McCain has psychological or physical effects that make him less attractive as a candidate? I guess this is the thanks he gets for honorably serving his country.


Apparently you chose not to read what I wrote. I never said there was any evidence. The only evidence I have of physical disabilites is what you (and others) have presented in this thread. I said that, imo, any voter is allowed to wonder if any candidate has aspects that make them less attractive, no matter how those aspects came about.

I also stated that I respect him for his service. However a distinguished military career does not automatically qualify someone for the job of being president. And to imply that I am not honoring him as a soldier because I do not find him an attractive presidential candidate is absurd. (even though I also stated this disability does not affect my decision.

[elliput]

Perception is a bizarre thing. We are all looking at the item from a slightly different angle and will therefore all see something slightly different. Some will see poor taste, others will see statement of fact. I don't think that is amazing at all.

[kijip]

The thread generated some thoughtful debate. I was brave enough to start a thread in very hostile territory that has often bordered on personal attacks toward me. A simple acknowledgment that the ad was in poor taste would have ended the issue. Amazingly, many defended the ad instead.

Amazingly, different people have different opinions? If I read this thread, I see a lot of people from all sides stating the ad is "in poor taste". I did so myself. I just don't understand the relentless need to take it out of context and call it something it is not. We can certainly agree to disagree (lordy knows, that is the best either of us should hope for!:ROTFLMAO:) but I fail to see why you feel entitled to get the response you want. I, and many others here, disagree with you. Not because we are mean or stupid or cold or evil but because as rational, thinking people and we draw a different conclusion than you and others (who are for the record also rational, thinking people that are neither mean or stupid or cold or evil). You seem to lack respect for the rights of others to just not see the issue through the same lense as you.

[kijip]

Oh for God's sake. Fine, all Democrats, everywhere, are evil for laughing at a crippled war hero who is chronologically gifted as we swan around in our Volvos and drink French wine. Great.

And don't forget, we lack a moral compass and family values, we are snobs, we love to kill babies and we want to invite the terrorists over for dinner. And even if we go to church every week, we are fake Christians.

And Volvo? We walk our baskets to the overpriced snooty farmer's market. :)

[gatorsmom]

I was brave enough to start a thread in very hostile territory that has often bordered on personal attacks toward me.

Gals, from reading her post here, I'm thinking Melissa is feeling a little piled on. If we don't want her to pick up her toys and leave the sandbox, maybe it's time for some hugs. :)

[psophia17]

Gals, from reading her post here, I'm thinking Melissa is feeling a little piled on. If we don't want her to pick up her toys and leave the sandbox, maybe it's time for some hugs. :)

I can see where Melissa could feel piled on. She was brave to post the thread she did. Reading between the lines, that much is clear. However, she chose to post with a thread title that qualifies as slander. No one has called it that in this thread, but "Shameless Obama mocks McCain" isn't really accurate, is it? There was a plan to point out something about his opponent that was not necessarily well known. I didn't know it, obviously many of us didn't know it, and whether we agree if it was in poor taste or not, it was neither shameless nor mocking. Nor was it in poor taste to discuss the ad, whether it was shameless or mocking from our perspective, or to defend our candidate from attacks that we perceive to be unfair. We (meaning anyone who disagreed with the OP), perhaps feel put out that the thread title has slung mud on our candidate.

But I digress, I fail to see why people who disagree with Melissa, and who are able to clearly state how and why they disagree, have been asked to agree with her, and are then asked to offer hugs to make her feel better that they don't agree. I for one am happy to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

[Melbel]

Gatorsmom - thanks for the hugs. I have felt incredibly piled on and even more personally attacked in the recent posts. I absolutely do respect the opinions of others, particularly when the opinions are supported by facts and well reasoned arguments. I likewise am entitled to express my opinions, even if others do not agree, without being personally attacked. I am allowed to feel amazed at some of the responses. This is precisely the free exchange that allows us to learn different perspectives. It remains my opinion that the ad was shameless and mocking (which therefore cannot be libelous). Many people did find the ad inappropriate. If others do not agree, that is fine too. While many of the posts had interesting, persuasive arguments, unfortunately, the BBB is just too one sided to engage in what I feel is a balanced, productive political debate. It is just not worth it to me to post here. Feel free to continue to pile on without me. I have officially left the sandbox and am in search of wine, preferably red, French or otherwise.

[KBecks]

And that's this week's case study in why intelligent conservatives initially try but ultimately choose not to participate in BBB political discussion.

Melissa, I really enjoyed your participation and I understand why it gets to be not worth it.

[fivi2]

And I guess I feel that anyone who starts a thread with the title and tone that this one started with (especially prior to the edit) was not looking for a reasoned political debate. To me, it read like a rant belonging elsewhere. I do not think one can start a thread with that tone (which was continued by many posters ON BOTH SIDES) and expect calm debate. Had the OP started a thread asking what people thought about the attack ads from both sides, perhaps the debate would have been less heated. I find it a little disingenious to start a thread with the tone of this one and then to say that is why conservatives don't post. But that is just my opinion.

[KBecks]

Conservatives don't post because a valid critique of a campaign ad disintegrates into "you just think we're evil", essentially shutting down any reasonable conversation on the topic.

[kijip]

Not worth it.

[Laurel]

And I guess I feel that anyone who starts a thread with the title and tone that this one started with (especially prior to the edit) was not looking for a reasoned political debate. To me, it read like a rant belonging elsewhere. I do not think one can start a thread with that tone (which was continued by many posters ON BOTH SIDES) and expect calm debate. Had the OP started a thread asking what people thought about the attack ads from both sides, perhaps the debate would have been less heated. I find it a little disingenious to start a thread with the tone of this one and then to say that is why conservatives don't post. But that is just my opinion.

Exactly this.