--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > Last Sunday evening I attended the San Francisco fundraiser that > > has been the center of recent political jousting. The next day, > > when asked about the talk Obama delivered, I too commented about > > his answer to a question he was asked about Pennsylvania. Over the > > past week, though, I have had a Rashomon-like experience > > concerning those remarks. > > Thanks for posting this, Marek. Rashomon's a good analogy. Playing > telephone would be too, since Clinton and many of her supporters > are acting so childish. Anything to avoid talking about this > issues, it would seem.
Something was said here recently that I believe captures the mindset that thinks and acts like this. It was said about Hillary Clinton, but I think it says more about the person who said it: "Approval ratings are highly fungible, and we don't know what kind of damage she could do to McCain's approval ratings once she started campaigning against him." How can we blame these people for getting all Rashomon on Obama's ass when the above is what they believe running for public office IS? It's about doing damage to your opponent's approval ratings. That's what the person who said this believes that campaigning IS. Whatever happened to the idea of running for office based on *merit*? Isn't it sad to see that some have sunk so low that they consider campaigning for public office to be a process of discovering and assigning to your opponent *demerits* to do damage to his approval rating.
