Calling McCain dishonorable is a disservice to the truth
I am raging mad and furious with the way the Obama campaign has been so negative lately.
They continue to use negative prefixes in reference to McCain's campaign.
The worst of these is the word dishonorable.
The most negative aspect of this word is that it makes Obama sound like he's playing defense. Like he really was so naïve as to think McCain would be honorable, and now he's complaining. "Hey wait, that's not in the script!" Furthermore, language more appropriate for the Harvard Law Review is not going to save America from Republicans and international terrorism.
Instead of accusing McCain and his campaign of not being what they are supposed to be, Obama should define McCain for what he is.
The next time McCain runs a TV ad that sinks to a new low in disingenuousness, don't call it that. Responding that way doesn't grab headlines, and even if it did, "Obama calls Republican TV ad 'disingenuous'" is exactly how Fox would write it because it sounds elitist for the choice of lexicon and like he's whining and not in it to win.
Instead, call it "cowardly." It would be a "take charge" reaction that would get headlines and dominate the day.
At the presidential debates, Obama should find the opportunity to call McCain a "liar" and a "coward." This would make him look ready to be commander-in-chief, dominate the postgame headlines, and maybe even have the added effect of making McCain blow his top on national television.
In East Asian philosophy the "negative methods" is employed when something cannot be defined. When it can't be defined, the approach is to list all the things that it is not. Is Obama unable to define the McCain we've seen as of late and call him what he is, instead of calling him what he isn't?
They continue to use negative prefixes in reference to McCain's campaign.
The worst of these is the word dishonorable.
The most negative aspect of this word is that it makes Obama sound like he's playing defense. Like he really was so naïve as to think McCain would be honorable, and now he's complaining. "Hey wait, that's not in the script!" Furthermore, language more appropriate for the Harvard Law Review is not going to save America from Republicans and international terrorism.
Instead of accusing McCain and his campaign of not being what they are supposed to be, Obama should define McCain for what he is.
The next time McCain runs a TV ad that sinks to a new low in disingenuousness, don't call it that. Responding that way doesn't grab headlines, and even if it did, "Obama calls Republican TV ad 'disingenuous'" is exactly how Fox would write it because it sounds elitist for the choice of lexicon and like he's whining and not in it to win.
Instead, call it "cowardly." It would be a "take charge" reaction that would get headlines and dominate the day.
At the presidential debates, Obama should find the opportunity to call McCain a "liar" and a "coward." This would make him look ready to be commander-in-chief, dominate the postgame headlines, and maybe even have the added effect of making McCain blow his top on national television.
In East Asian philosophy the "negative methods" is employed when something cannot be defined. When it can't be defined, the approach is to list all the things that it is not. Is Obama unable to define the McCain we've seen as of late and call him what he is, instead of calling him what he isn't?
