MyDD :: Truth is finally catching up to Obama

Truth is finally catching up to Obama

by PlainWords, Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST

The truth is finally starting to come out, no thanks to American "journalism." Canadian TV just ran a big story about Obama lying to Ohio on NAFTA. The Obama campaign secretly contacted the The truth is finally starting to come out, no thanks to American "journalism." Canadian TV just ran a big story about Obama lying to Ohio on NAFTA. The Obama campaign secretly contacted the Canadian ambassador and told him not to worry about what he says on NAFTA in Ohio. "Don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric..." See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4J uU

Also, David Gergen backed HRC's version from the debate saying that she was never a fan of NAFTA. See the video here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/27/ 234248/348#74

And here is the whole story on who really did the race-baiting, from Sean Wilentz in The New Republic, 2/27/08, "Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton":
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Re NAFTA, it also looks like the Obama campaign then tried to leak that HRC campaign also "indirectly" contacted Canada but HRC campaign said it did not come from them and gave "blanket immunity" to the Canadian govt. to reveal the source.

Here's more of the real truth on Obama and NAFTA from the Machinist's Union: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/20/ machinists-union-tells-it-like-it-is/

This is big because so far Obama has had immunity from the press. He got away with the flat lie on Exelon after IOWA, when he said he passed legislation to force nuclear plants to report radiation accidents. Actually, he introduced it, but then at the behest of industry lobbyists, watered it down so much that nuclear plants would NOT have to report accidents, and then it did not even pass.

Another one he got away with was his misleading statement about Rezko when he pretended it was only a "boneheaded mistake" about him buying a lot from a lobbyist. The facts are that, right after he got into the Senate, he let a lobbyist then under investigation help him buy a $1.9M house for $1.6M. The lobbyist had to buy the lot next door for the full asking price. He then turned right around and sold 1/6 of it to Obama and put the rest on the market. Obviously, he didn't buy the lot because he wanted it. This is a crooked deal, and a recent one. They later got the seller to try to deny it, but all the verifiable facts, as opposed to conflicting statements from people in on the deal, say otherwise.

Then as recently as the last debate, Obama got away with another lie about work for veterans, again claiming credit for legislation that was really the work of others. Tim Russert was too busy attacking HRC on NAFTA to notice.

Then there is all the phony rhetoric about what votes should be counted. He told Politico that we should not count Florida and Michigan because it would be wrong to "change the rules" (even though the rules seem to have been set up by Obama supporters like Donna Brazile and Howard Dean to give him an advantage). So here is a black man - one who has led a privileged life of private schools and exclusive opportunities that most black men and women cannot even dream of, arguing to disenfranchise working-class voters who cast ballots in perfectly fair primaries. This is especially true of Florida, a state where elderly voters and African-Americans in large numbers had their votes stolen or were blocked from the polls in 2000, a state where this year both Clinton and Obama (as well as Edwards) were on the ballot with an equal chance to get votes and where all of the candidates refrained equally from campaigning (although Obama did break the rules to make one public appearance to the media), and where 1.7 million people cast ballots, which Obama now wants to throw in the trash.

And even more disgusting, in the very same Politico interview where he said we shouldn't count Florida because that would be "changing the rules," he said we should throw away the rules and not count the superdelegates because counting them would go against the will of the people. And as you all should know, his surrogates and mouthpiece Move-On later publicly accused Clinton of trying to steal "his" superdelegates, condemned her for it, and were supported happily in that by the fawning camp-following media. Even the Washington Post re-published a cartoon showing the Clintons trying to steal superdelegates. But privately, the Obama campaign was actually stealing Clinton superdelegates. Now, let's be clear, I've never thought there was anything wrong with trying to get superdelegates to switch. The whole point of being one - something by the way that they have all EARNED - is that you can vote who whomever you wish. But there is something wrong, very wrong, about trying to smear the other candidate with it while you yourself are doing it. And there is something very dishonest about claiming we should not change the rules where it would hurt you, but that we should change the rules if it would help you.

Admittedly, lots of politicians lie all the time, but not ones claiming to be Jesus. The real question now is whether the blinded starry-eyed left will wake up on time.

Tags: Truth, Obama, Lying, NAFTA, Race, race-baiting (all tags)

Permalink :: 52 Comments :: Post a Comment

Thank you! (none / 0)

"Admittedly, lots of politicians lie all the time, but not ones claiming to be Jesus. The real question now is whether the blinded starry-eyed left will wake up on time."

Telling me that my chosen candidate lies all the time, claims to be Jesus, and that I need to wake up from my blinded starry-eyed sleep on the left was finally the kind of sober, respectful, dignified, courteous, polite, and persuasive writing I needed.

I highly highly recommend you continue to advocate for your candidate using this lofty and respectful tone.

Good job!

Clinton/Kristol 08!

by Cobalt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM EST

Re: if the shoe doesn't fit (none / 0)

LOL, I think that should be "truth", Joan.

by Cobalt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

Did you miss the part before the last two sentences?

Either you did, in which case you don't care about facts. Or you did not, and you are blind to them.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank God Barack's on Our Side! (none / 0)

Yes, Indeed!

We don't need no frackin' Jesus! What we need is a low-down dirty fighter, who will win!

That would be Obama! Obama's a dirty fighter, and he hires tough guns--like Robert Gibbs, who destroyed Howard Dean in 2003:

In the week of December 17, 2003 a very dirty ad appeared on Iowa television.

The spokesman and (one of three) leader for the group that ran the ad was Robert Gibbs. Robert Gibbs is also the current communications director for Barack Obama.

The 2003 advertisment, just before the Iowa caucuses, morphed the face of Osama Bin Laden with the face of then frontrunner presidential candidate Howard Dean.

Watch the ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1DqOwP3X zc

Well. Who cares about what Gibbs said about Howard Dean Then. This is Now!

Gibbs claimed that

"Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy," and that "It's time for Democrats to think about that, and think about it now."

Gibbs believes that

...a Presidential candidate with `no military or foreign policy experience' is `unqualified'.

As the Chicago Tribune pointed out

Obama Team Can Play Rough

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/obama/chi-obama_0622jun22,1,3650688. story

Despite often lofty rhetoric that he plans to bring the nation a "new kind of politics," Sen. Barack Obama has surrounded himself with operatives skilled in the old-school art of the political backstab. [snip]

When Obama assembled his crew early this year, he brought together a team with a long track record of the sort of caustic rhetoric he has pledged to avoid, just as other presidential candidates have done by hiring people similarly talented in the art of opposition research and attack. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) even hired some of the very people who trashed his 2000 presidential bid.

From his campaign headquarters in a high-rise on Michigan Avenue, Obama's political warriors range from a research director with extensive experience in throwing darts from Democratic National Committee's offices to a communications director who once worked for a group that ran a controversial ad that used an image of Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean.

[...]

Obama's communications director and one of his closest advisers was once employed by a group that ran a television ad shortly before the 2004 Iowa caucuses that used a picture of bin Laden to criticize Dean's foreign policy credentials at a point when Dean was the Democratic front-runner.

When Obama's Current Communications Director, Robert Gibbs, Smeared Howard Dean, as having no experience, this was Deans Bio:

Dean was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives as a Democrat in 1982 and was elected lieutenant governor in 1986.

[...]

In 1991, Dean became Governor of Vermont when Richard A. Snelling died in office. Dean was subsequently elected to five two-year terms, serving as governor from 1991 to 2003, making him the second longest-serving Governor in Vermont history, after Thomas Chittenden (1778-1789 and 1790-1797).

Dean served as chairman of the National Governors Association from 1994 to 1995; during his term, Vermont paid off much of its public debt and had a balanced budget 11 times, lowering income taxes twice. Dean also oversaw the expansion of the "Dr. Dynasaur" program, which ensures universal health care for children and pregnant women in the state.

Professor Sean Wilentz reveled in Obama's dirty politics recently in this article, sending a clear signal about Obama's serious focus on WINNING in November, no matter what it takes:

Race Man

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters-a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode.

While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

The Obama campaign gay bashing, gay baiting tour of South Carolina was also "egregious and dangerous".

Obama sought to exploit stereotypes, prejudice and ignorance to divide two jewels of the Democratic base, African-Americans and Gay Americans. That gay bashing tour was the dress rehearsal for the race baiting to come...

A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.

[...]

"...the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada-and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters.

Playing dirty to win is Barack Obama's calling card! Thank goodness he's on our side.

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops Here's the Link to the Gibbs Ad (none / 0)

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=V1DqOw P3Xzc

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman

by Tennessean on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

Clinton supporters linking to "dirty" campaign ads today of all days!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys have an awesome sense of humor!

by Cobalt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

Er, Cobalt, Tennessean is not a Clinton supporter.

Do you even read the posts you comment on?

Or are you just blogging during TV commercials?

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't want him on my side. (2.00 / 2)

He's not on our country's side. Race-baiting is not what our country needs. More lying is not what our country needs. More hate is not what our country needs. We need a few more Lincolns, Washingtons, FDRs. Not Bushes and Reagans. HRC would be one of our greatest presidents. Obama will be just another cheap hack who will sell out the people.

I do regret, though, that more people can't read your post. It would make a great Clinton ad.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want him on my side. (none / 0)

Well, that was objective, here let me give it a try, HRC would be a moody, vindictive paranoiac much like Nixon, Obama, would fufill the potential once shown by another young, smart, eloquent, canidate, who unfortunately lacked the discipline and foresight necessary to control himself in an absolutely stack media enviroment, yes Obama, will be Clinton in 92' only he'll follow through instead "Sista Soujah"ing the American Left.

by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want him on my side. (none / 0)

Read it in context. It's a response to Tennessean.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want him on my side. (none / 0)

Hmmm. A better description of Obama is that he is a carbon copy of GWB using Rove tactics to take what he has not put the effort in to earning. His supporters are just like the fundamentalists who support GWB because he gets down on his knees and prays every day.

There is not a penny's worth of difference between the two camps.

by macmcd on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:49:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Executive Leadership (none / 0)

If she runs our country the way she runs her campaign, we are in deep squidshit.

From The Atlantic on her campaign managers loyalty
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/p atti-solis-doyle/2
Hillary's Campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton's Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration--and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary's inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit.

Then of course is their highliy disorganized campaign which cannot seem to put all of the ground troops in place.
From the NYT:
But it's the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it's a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate's message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama's organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall -- the March 4 contests -- she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she "had no idea" that the Texas primary system was "so bizarre" (it's a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had "people trying to understand it as we speak." Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama's people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn't file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinio n/24rich.html
Oooh yeah she's a smart one. She will really whip this country into shape wont she?

Does anyone see the similarity in GWB's preparation for the Iraq war and HRC's preparation for this campaign?

1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.

2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.

3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.

4. Both are adament that their strategy was sound.

5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.

6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.

7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.

The list can go on and on.

I think we just might need a little CHANGE HERE.

by mageduley on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Change... Let's see... (2.00 / 1)

Bush: "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Then leads the most divisive presidency in U.S. history.

Obama: "I can bring us together." Then runs a race-baiting, dishonest campaign, smearing his opponent, who has worked for the party for 35 years.

Bush supporters: No matter what he does, they find an excuse for it.

Obama supporters: No matter what he does, they find an excuse for it.

This is a deeply flawed man who will do anything to win, and who afterwards will betray the people who voted for him. I won't be one of them.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Change... Let's see... (none / 0)

Hillary's version of Change
http://www.markfiore.com/project_hillary _0

by mageduley on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Change... Let's see... (none / 0)

That's just dirt, already recognized as false, you troll.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Change... Let's see... (none / 0)

What is false about it? Please elaborate. Comedy is best the closer it is to the truth.

by mageduley on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank God Barack's on Our Side! (none / 0)

How are you able to make such a long comment?

I get cut off at 50 words -- sometimes before 50 words!

by moevaughn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank God Barack's on Our Side! (none / 0)

that's the subject line, you have to cut out whatever's in that space

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank God Barack's on Our Side! (none / 0)

Thanks for the tip!

by moevaughn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look who's on your side... (none / 0)

Read the Tennessean's post. Are those the kind of people you want to identify with? Is that what you respect?

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those Darn Hope Mongers (none / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB _M

by mageduley on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup (2.00 / 1)

Our Canadian strategy is in shambles.

At this rate, I don't expect us to win a single delegate out of Quebec.

And Manitoba? Forget it... we're ceding all of the Manitoba delegates to Clinton.

We have slim hopes for Alberta, but all in all, it's entirely possibly that -- on March 4 -- we're not going to win a single Canadian province.

by zonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST

Re: Yup (none / 0)

Well, you're funny. I'll give you that.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't worry...President McCain (none / 0)

will make it all better.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bullshit (none / 0)

Based on? being there? Taking part in the conversation? Hating Obama and wanting it to be true?

Take yer pick...any of works for me.

by Cobalt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST

Re: bullshit (none / 0)

Watch the CTV video. The Obama campaign did not deny it.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Thank you. Great post...I think the democratic party has saved itself from throwing itself over the cliff.

We will nominate Hillary and we will elect one of the greatest presidents ever. Go Hillary.

by seattlegonz on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (1.00 / 1)

you forgot the /snark tag!

by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

You're really that much of a Mccain fan?

by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:01:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

I must say that I would be relieved if Obama's people did contact the Canadians and did a wink wink nod nod at them.

It is better to have a leading candidate for President be a liar than to have him be a protectionist fool!

I am more disturbed by the Wilentz article, and I remember being horrified when Jesse Jackson came out with his "she does not cry for black people" comment. I think more reporting needs to be done on that front.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (2.00 / 1)

I disagree that it's better to have a liar than a protectionist. I hope you don't really think that. Besides, there is a middle path, which is what HRC has taken. She has been truthful, and is trying to support trade AND employment.

But I do agree that the race-baiting is much worse. That is what way back at the beginning started me looking into Obama's record. Until then, I thought, okay, if HRC doesn't make it, I'll support him. But now, I won't. I just can't. My family fled czarist Russia to escape pogroms. I can't vote for a race-baiter, even if he is black.

I just hope that HRC wins Texas and Ohio, so I don't have to leave the party.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Sure, I believe it is better to have a liar than a fool. Of course, I would prefer it if the choices were expanded, but if the choice is between a liar and a fool, I prefer a liar.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

The choices are expanded. Neither HRC nor OB is a fool, but OB is a liar.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Nobody can't run away from the truth forever.
It will always come back to you like a boomerang.
Karmic law of the universe.

People with the truth on their side will be confidence and not nervous. It will play out in the end.

by JoeySky18 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:35:10 PM EST

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Oh sure. Everybody but Obama is lying.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:50:57 PM EST

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Hornbeck: Something happens to an Also-Ran. Something happens to the feet of a man who always comes in second in a foot-race. He becomes a national unloved child, a balding orphan, an aging adolescent who never got the biggest piece of candy. Show me a shouter and I'll show you an Also-Ran. A might-have-been. An almost-was.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Sadly, this is a typical argument of an Obama supporter on the blogs.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

If you'd like to debate an actual issue, instead of hysterical internet rumors and distortions, I'm all virtual ears.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Take the wax out of them.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

I'll take that irrelevance as an admission of defeat.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

I already stated my argument, with plenty of facts, and they have gone unanswered. I don't play your silly games. You think anyone with brains is going to be influenced by your silly one-liners? You waste my time.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Admittedly, lots of politicians lie all the time, but not ones claiming to be Jesus. The real question now is whether the blinded starry-eyed left will wake up on time.

Well, that is some devastating factual argumentin', there.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

This is what you Obama people do: Ignore all the facts and pick out something simple to use for a one-liner. All the justification for those quoted sentences is in the whole lengthy post that precedes them, for which you have no answer.

The best argument against Obama is the kind of arguments used to support him. As I said, you waste my time. Go back to watching re-runs of The Daily Show. It has the depth of analysis that should appeal to you.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

"Depth of analysis"?

Look, I'm sorry you're not a good enough writer to sell that hodge-podge of half-truths, inuendo and spin.

The Obama campaign secretly contacted the Canadian ambassador and told him not to worry about what he says on NAFTA in Ohio.

No. An economics professor who advises Obama had a conversation about NAFTA with an employee of the Canadian consulate in Chicago. No one is sure what they said. Wow. The truth is a lot less dramatic, isn't it? Do try to read the news.

They later got the seller to try to deny it

Really? What was that curse from Harry Potter IV? Did you get this information from your pensieve? You people desperately hoping for a "smoking gun" from Reszko are every bit as pathetic as 'wingers desperately waiting (in vain, remember?) for the "truth" about Whitewater.

He told Politico that we should not count Florida and Michigan because it would be wrong to "change the rules" (even though the rules seem to have been set up by Obama supporters like Donna Brazile and Howard Dean to give him an advantage).

Ah yes. Evil, evil Howard Dean (whom the Clintons tried to replace at the DNC with Liebercrat Harold Ford) knew a year ago that the delegate count would be this close, and that Hillary Clinton would run a lousy campaign, and that a half-term Senator would break all fund-raising records, bring a record number of new voters to primaries and caucuses, eclipsing Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, and with fiendish cleverness, tricked the state parties of Florida and Michigan into screwing themselves. He truly is a diabolical mastermind.

This diary is a long, silly screed. Fact-free paranoia and whining victimhood from start to finish. The only thing you left out was how Obama tricked Hillary Clinton into voting for George Bush's war. Because no matter how much you people whine and spin and bitch and piss and moan, that vote is the reason she didn't put this away after New Hampshire like she thought she would.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Well well, if you kick the dog enough times, finally it yelps.

You quote: "The Obama campaign secretly contacted the Canadian ambassador and told him not to worry about what he says on NAFTA in Ohio."

And your reply is: "No. An economics professor who advises Obama had a conversation about NAFTA with an employee of the Canadian consulate in Chicago. No one is sure what they said. Wow. The truth is a lot less dramatic, isn't it? Do try to read the news."

Nice try, but CTV is standing behind its story that a high Obama campaign official - and I don't give a damn if he also happens to be an economics professor - sent a message to the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, saying "Don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric." (Just words!!)

And even the slimy Robert Gibbs could not bring himself to deny the story and was evasive when questioned about it.

An advisor would never act alone in doing such a thing and should be dismissed if he did. But I'm not hearing any dismissals.

You quote: "'They later got the seller to try to deny it.' Really? What was that curse from Harry Potter IV? Did you get this information from your pensieve? "

Sorry, I'm not interested in the Harry Potter fantasy, although it helps to know where you're coming from. The fact is that the doctor who sold both pieces of property has tried to claim Obama did not get $300K off the house, but the facts are that the house was advertised for $1.9M and the lot for $0.6M, and Obama got the house for $1.6M and Rezko bought the lot for $0.6M.

You quote (selectively, leaving out the fact that he wants to change the rules where it would help him): "He told Politico that we should not count Florida and Michigan because it would be wrong to "change the rules" (even though the rules seem to have been set up by Obama supporters like Donna Brazile and Howard Dean to give him an advantage)."

"Ah yes. Evil, evil Howard Dean (whom the Clintons tried to replace at the DNC with Liebercrat Harold Ford) knew a year ago that the delegate count would be this close, and that Hillary Clinton would run a lousy campaign, and that a half-term Senator would break all fund-raising records, bring a record number of new voters to primaries and caucuses, eclipsing Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, and with fiendish cleverness, tricked the state parties of Florida and Michigan into screwing themselves. He truly is a diabolical mastermind."

Those are your (juvenile) words, not mine. I was not aware that the Clintons had tried to replace Dean, but if true, I commend them. The DNC is indeed tilted into far loony field.. And Howard Dean is the Move-On guy who... let's see, ... they ran the phony blink-and-you-missed-it vote of their members that only Internet junkies would have seen on time to vote, and then had the nerve to declare that the vote represented all 1.5 million of their (claimed) members, which includes people like me that they only send junk mail to. It's easy to ridicule your response, but the missing part of your response is more revealing than what you say: You not surprisingly ignore what is important, and that is the inconsistency and dishonesty of Obama's position on what votes should be counted. That's fundamental to the election. I can see why his supporters don't want to look at it.

Then you say: "This diary is a long, silly screed. Fact-free paranoia and whining victimhood from start to finish. The only thing you left out was how Obama tricked Hillary Clinton into voting for George Bush's war."

HRC did not vote for war. She voted for Chuck Hagel's (and he is a Republican who has always opposed the war) resolution that was intended to force the inspectors back in. This was the intent at the time and what the Administration had assured the Senate. HRC was for forcing the inspectors back in because thousands of her constituents in New York had recently been killed and thousands more wanted to be sure that Iraq did not have WMD. Obama did not have to face this choice, and when he was in the U.S. Senate, he changed his tune and said in 2004 that he mostly supported Bush's conduct of the war. Bill Clinton was right: Obama's one signature issue is based on a fairy tale, exactly as Bill Clinton said.

And you wrap up with this: "Because no matter how much you people whine and spin and bitch and piss and moan, that vote is the reason she didn't put this away after New Hampshire like she thought she would."

Actually, the reason was that at that point, Obama threw charges of racism at Bill Clinton so nobody would listen to what he said. There could not be a better indication of what kind of man Obama is. And people like you, with your "whine and spin and bitch and piss and moan" argument, are an indication of what kind of people follow him.

I'm through with you.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Well well, if you kick the dog enough times, finally it yelps. Heh. Your attempt at superciliousness is so hapless it's almost endearing. Nice try, but CTV is standing behind its story that a high Obama campaign official - and I don't give a damn if he also happens to be an economics professor - sent a message to the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, saying "Don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric." (Just words!!) Not even a basic grasp of the facts. Not surprising. I was not aware that the Clintons had tried to replace Dean, but if true, I commend them. Uh huh. The fifty state strategy that took back the House and the Senate. We can't have that. Oh, wait... it's also the strategy that is making Penn, Wolfson et al look like fools and losers. No wonder you're bitter. And I can't help but notice, you don't address the facts that contradict your paranoid rant about Howard Dean trying to game the system in Obama's favor. One more sad and self-agrandizing conspiracy fantasy shot down. You'll have to start again. HRC did not vote for war. Your complete intellectual and ethical bankruptcy summed up in five words and three initials. because thousands of her constituents in New York had recently been killed and thousands more wanted to be sure that Iraq did not have WMD. Ugh. Not even Bush is trying to use 9/11 and WMD as excuses anymore. Just pathetic. You people have just tied yourself up in knots trying to justify your narcissism. The really sad thing is, even with her vote for Bush's war, Hillary Clinton deserves so much better than the idiots who campaign for her. From Mark Penn all the way down to you. Stay home and suck your thumb on election day. The rest of us will do the heavy lifting to protect the country from Bombs Away McCain.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Check this out:

Joe Wilson, "Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson /obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

by PlainWords on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (none / 0)

Oh, and "misogyny". You forgot "misogyny". Remember, he used the word "periodically".

Truly, he is the new Nixon.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's toast. (2.00 / 0)

All those stupid voters who backed him are not as smart as Hillary supporters.

by Bob Johnson on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:38:36 PM EST

Re: He's toast. (none / 0)

Troll.

by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth is finally catching up to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Thank you a hundred times over... For putting my thoughts, and the thoughts of many others, out there is such a convincing a cohesive way...
Thank you, Plain Words. The PLAIN TRUTH WILL PREVAIL!!! Vote Hillary Clinton 08

by susanclare on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:13:00 PM EST

Re: rezko (none / 0)

Does anyone else find it odd that the Rezko trial beginning date was moved up from 2/25 (this past Monday) to 3/03 (next Monday). If they had stuck with the original schedule, it would have dominated the news this week (or at least made some daily headlines) all the way up to Tuesday's primary.

Who does this change of date benefit in the presidential campaign?

Does anyone know about the rationale or strings-pulling behind the date change?

by moevaughn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:33:25 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.