I just started picturing this. Turns out - that almost everything Obama's team could say would look and make them look foolish.
How do you attack someone who says "follow the constitution"?
So the issues:
Abortion:
-- He doesn't support womens rights to an abortion... this man DELIVERED babies with out killing them?
Economy:
-- He wants to stop government spending so your dollars are worth more. It will hurt the free handouts you get, but in the long run you will be able to buy bread with out a wheelbarrow of money. Since he wants to SLOWLY roll back the entitlement programs that hold you down anyway, you've got plenty of time to get a job/training/etc.....
Jobs:
-- He wants to stop the government having so many regulations so new businesses can open, old ones can expand, and innovation can really happen. This COULD end the free unemployment checks you've been getting.
International Policy:
-- I realize that Obama campaigned on getting our troops home, and then escalated Afghanistan, and started bombing another country -- but he's really the peace candidate!
I literally can't think of a "positive" negative spin they can do. Literally when you attack someone politically it has to make someone else look better. Beyond pushing the "crazy" image he's got - which doesn't seem crazy anymore, what do they have?
I'd just think it would backfire.
Adding to Moxie's comment, Obama is a good orator. He knows how to use his platform to manipulate his audience's emotions. He seems unable to think on his feet, but can wield talking points very well.
So, on abortion, Obama and Co. might say:
"Some people* think it's okay to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Some feel they should have to right to make these decisions for women despite never having experienced what they're going through. I say they're wrong. Women should have the right to choose for themselves."
On the economy:
"Some people* want to tear down the safety net that guarantees those less fortunate than themselves can receive the basic services they need. They want to do away with Social Security, eliminating the checks retirees have come to depend upon. They want to get rid of unemployment benefits, depriving those who are unable to feed their families of the one financial lifeline they can count on. Some people* want to pull the rug from under American citizens who want nothing more than to live with enough food and hope for a better tomorrow. I think there's a better way to see this country to a new dawn of greatness."
On jobs:
"Some people* side with the big corporations. They want to cut wages, eliminate jobs, and allow employers to force employees to work longer hours for less pay. I say we need to approach this with a little humanity, compassion, and forethought. We should understand that our country's greatness and promise for the future rests on the shoulders of citizens who want nothing more than to earn a fair wage for a fair day's work. And for that to happen, we need a few guidelines."
On international policy:
"Some people* fail to admit that the world continues to be a dangerous place. They act as if every nation loves the U.S., and wants to be our best friend and ally.** We should remain open to communicating with other nations, and extending our hand in friendship. We should establish peaceful ties whenever possible. There are times, however, when friendship and peace are not on the minds of those who would do us harm. In those times, hard decisions need to be made. Those who think every nation loves us seem unwilling to make those decisions."
If I were running the Obama campaign, that's how I'd do it. Note how there is nothing of value in any of the above responses. Only words to sate the emotional appetites of voters. Would it survive a logical debate. Of course not. But then, that has never been the gauge of voters.
*This is one of Obama's timeworn tactics. He says "some people" rather than calling out names.
** lol Another Obama tactic. No one actually says the stuff Obama says they say. But people believe it because Obama asserts it.
