Thread: Does Obama have a thick enough skin not to whine every time McCain takes a...

...verbal shot at him? Does Obama even know how to shoot back verbally?

All of this Mr. Nice Guy stuff is wearing thin and Obama needs to show the nation whether he has any backbone.

To answer your question;

No, Barack Obama has thinner skin that John Kerry did in 2004. Barack Obama is a empty suit protected by skin color and cries of racism.

ever watch an election process before??? that is how it works.

He's better than that. He's more teflon than Bill Clinton and he does fire back without ever losing one ounce of his nice guy image. Obama has the magic required to defeat a strong opponent, McCain is not a strong opponent. You almost have to feel sorry for McCain because not only will he lose the election, he betrayed his own principles to please the far right but after losing he will still be spit out by the GOP and conservatives for being too liberal to win anyway.

The American right never lets reality get in the way of their propaganda and McCain will get hurt bad.

Show the world hisbackbone?
Then forget that idea!

Its nice to know that you can always defend someone who broke their own guidlines for a "clean campaign" by claiming the other guy doesn't have "thick skin".

The truth need not defend itself. I believe that is also the way Sen. Obama views things.
To everyone who rants on and on about this is that way or that is this way, the only need to continually prove the same point over and over again, is if it is not the truth.
The truth defends itself.
I think the true test of "backbone" is restraint.

No, he is easily stressed even when he doesn't have a "plethora" of attacks against him.

Uh, he did shoot back verbally. I guess you missed the press conferences. If he says nothing you cry about that... if he smacks Bush and McCain around...you cry about THAT.

Yes, unless this is what you call "whining" :

"You know, after almost eight years, I did not think I could be surprised about anything that George Bush says, but I was wrong. Yesterday, George Bush was before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to help commemorate the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence. That's a wonderful occasion and a time for celebration.

But instead of celebrating and offering some clear ideas about how to move the situation in the Middle East forward, the president did something that presidents don't do, and that is launch a political attack targeted toward the domestic market in front of a foreign delegation.

On a day when we were supposed to be celebrating the anniversary of Israel's independence, he accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were "appeasers," no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler. That's what George Bush said in front of the Israeli parliament.

Now, that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world. And that's why we need change in Washington. That's part of the reason why I'm running for president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that was frustrating enough, but then John McCain gives a speech. Now, he gave a speech at the -- in the morning, where he talked about the need for civility in our politics. He talked about elevating the tone of the debate in our country. He talked about reaching out in a bipartisan fashion to the other side.

And then, not an hour later, he turned around and embraced George Bush's attacks on Democrats. He jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn't fit to protect this nation that I love because I wanted to sit down and negotiate with tough diplomacy with countries like Iran, accused me of not being fit to protect this nation, a nation that my grandfather served in World War II, this nation that's given me everything that I have.

So much for civility.

Well, I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain and with the people of South Dakota. If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have any time, any place, and that is a debate that I will win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

(APPLAUSE)

George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for. They've got to explain why we are now in our sixth year, entering our sixth year of war in Iraq.

We were supposed to be going over there for weapons of mass destruction that we never found. We were told that it was going to last a few months and cost a few billion dollars. We have now spent over $600 billion, thousands of lives lost, and we have not been made more safe.

They're going to have to explain the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large and is sending out videotapes with impunity.

They need to answer for the fact that Al Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

They've got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush's policies.

They're going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority.

They're going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to America and Israel and the Middle East in a generation.

That's the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double-down on, because he still hasn't spelled out one substantial way in which he'd be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

(APPLAUSE)

So I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple of days.

And, you know, let me just say one -- a couple other things about this. I was going to say one more, but I've got a couple of things.

John McCain has repeated this notion that I'm prepared to negotiate with terrorists. I have never said that; I have been adamant about not negotiating with Hamas, a terrorist organization that has vowed to destroy Israel and won't recognize them.

In fact, the irony is yesterday, just as John McCain was making these attacks, a story broke that he was actually guilty of the exact same thing that he's accusing me of and, in fact, was saying that maybe we need to deal with Hamas.

And that's the kind of hypocrisy that we've been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear-mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safe.

They're trying to fool you and trying to scare you, and they're not telling the truth. And the reason is, is because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits.

But it's not going to work. And it's not going to work this time, and it's not going to work this year.

Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now. And that's the policy that John McCain is running on. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism.

I'm running for president to change course, not to continue George Bush's course.

(APPLAUSE)

I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy. That's what John F. Kennedy did. That's what Ronald Reagan did when dealing with the Soviets. And that's what the president's own secretary of defense wants to do.

I mean, understand George Bush's secretary of defense suggests that we talk directly to Iran. So I don't know if George Bush is calling his own secretary of defense an appeaser. I don't know who he's talking about.

It's time to present Iran with a clear choice: If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.

But in the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is a "appeaser." And back during his "No Surrender" tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq wanted to "surrender."

He even said later on that he would be willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, although I think he noticed that it wasn't polling well, because yesterday he said suddenly that our troops are going to be home by 2013, although he didn't explain how he was going to do it.

He offered the promise that America will win a victory with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war, just like George Bush's plan isn't about winning, it's about staying. And that's why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war and bringing our troops home.

(APPLAUSE)

Because we don't need John McCain's predictions about when the war will end; we need a plan to end it. And that's what I've provided during this campaign.

The American people have had enough of the division and the bluster. Both Bush and McCain represent the failed foreign policy and fear-mongering of the past.

I believe the American people are ready to reject this approach and to choose the future. I think you're ready for change that unites this country, and ends this war, and restores our security and standing in the world, and that is serious about a bipartisan foreign policy.

You can't suggest that you want to be bipartisan and then run the kinds of campaign tactics that we've been seeing over the last couple of days. You've got to start while you're campaigning. That's why we need to bring about some change in the White House.

All right, I just wanted to get that off my chest, guys. That's about our foreign policy".

(APPLAUSE)