A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.
To pull off successful attacks in debates, you have to execute with nuance and subtlety. It has to be artful.
Historians partial to Kennedy see matters differently from those partial to L.B.J. Vietnam has become a point of contention in defending and criticizing J.F.K.
Attack politics costs us dearly in terms of insight into the candidates. In a presidential campaign, the focus is so tight that the politicians are afraid to say anything that hasn't been scripted.
One of the least appealing aspects of modern presidential candidates is that, to avoid saying anything that might prove to be an embarrassing, costly blunder, they cling to a rigid set of talking points that reveal as little as possible about what they really think and who they really are.
In a presidential campaign, you can't lie. You can't hide what you are and what you want. You can't hide what kind of President you'll be. You can't keep on talking about nothing indefinitely and committing to nothing, you can't keep running away from debate, masking the challenges.
Anything can go wrong in a debate, and Obama is not a perfect debater.
The idea that somebody who has done something horrible in a war is not willing to talk about it for 32 years is hardly a shocking idea. Quite the contrary.
Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue.
Most people have this protective view of the presidency. Anybody who holds the office is always gonna get the benefit of the doubt unless the media spends four years destroying them like they did Bush, and with Bush not returning fire.
No opposing quotes found.