This video has been making the rounds. Children singing for their “Dear Leader” Obama, recorded with the help of Jeffery Zucker (Head of NBC?)
Like many people, I think it sounded better in the original German
This video has been making the rounds. Children singing for their “Dear Leader” Obama, recorded with the help of Jeffery Zucker (Head of NBC?)
Like many people, I think it sounded better in the original German
Barack Obama is tying to bully TV Stations not to run this ad. Therefore it’s the duty of every person who cares about the First Amendment to run these ads, as often as possible.
(If you can’t see the video, click here to watch it on You Tube.)
Dave Kopel has a nice article explaining why this ad (and the other NRA ads) are true, contra the whining of “FactCheck”.
I’ve been reading Tom on the “Dodd Plan” to stabilize the market, and IMHO he’s missed the most noxious part of the plan. Here’s the proposal ‘s comments
(3) VESTING OF SHARES.—If, after the purchase of troubled assets from a financial institution, the amount the Secretary receives in disposing of such assets is less than the amount that the Secretary paid for such assets, the contingent shares received by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall automatically vest to the Secretary on behalf of the United States Treasury in an amount equal to— (A) 125 percent of the dollar amount of the difference between the amount that the Secretary paid for the troubled assets and the disposition price of such assets; divided by (B) the amount of the average share price of the financial institution from which such assets were purchased during the 14 business days prior to the date of such purchase.
Let’s consider a scenario:
(You want to replace Obama w/ McCain and Democrat with Republican, go right ahead. Of course, in teh reversed case the MSM might actually pay attention to what’s happening.)
How much were those assets really worth? We don’t know. But, in the end, what they’re worth is control of the company for political purposes, and giving the government more power.
It’s a bad plan.
Via Sobek Pundit I came across this video of The One yelling at an old woman in Iowa who was asking him a question have national security:
Obama ends it by saying
don’t think that I care any less than Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney about keeping my daughters from being blown up.
Senator Obama, I don’t believe that you care any less about protecting your daughters, the ones you send to a $20,000 / year private school (while opposing vouchers that would allow poor people to send their daughters to private schools (be they less glamorous than yours)).
Protecting our daughters, sons, siblings, spouses, parents, friends, etc., OTOH, is not something I think you care all that much about.
Because if you did, you wouldn’t have advocated and pushed for American defeat in Iraq, you wouldn’t associate with a known and unrepentant terrorist like William Ayers, and you wouldn’t be an opponent of ballistic missile defense.
AS President, I’m sure your daughters would be safe. It’s just the rest of us who need to worry.
This started out life as a comment over at Megan’s place, after she whined about McCain’s “Obama Sex Education” ad. (I note with amusement that rather than being posted, “Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.” Given that there’s no real logging in, my guess is it’s a size issue.)
If you haven’t read Jim Geraghty’s two defenses of the McCain Ad, as well as Byron York’s you should. Both provide solid background that the MSM has left out. Commenter “glasnost” attempts to strike back here, mainly by quoting ABC. Too bad ABC’s full of crap.
My comment to “glasnost”:
You know, I just figured out why this is such a winning issue for McCain, and why it so completely torques you “Coastal Elite” types.”
The Obama defense is “look, you’re being unreasonable. Of course we’re not going to take advantage of ambiguous language in order to do insane things (like teach about sex to Kindergarteners) in the classroom.” And the response from the McCain camp, and from the sane part of America, is “the Hell you aren’t. You have in the past, you will in the future, so we’re not going to let you screw up our kids education now.” The fact that most Americans just don’t trust you really pisses you off. “Who do those hicks think they are, not trusting me?” Answer: they’re “What’s Wrong with Kansas.” They’re the people whose votes decide elections. And they don’t trust you because people like you have been coarsening our culture for the last 40 years, and they think that makes the country worse off.
I ran across this article School sex club run by small boys, says Brisbane dad, and thought “I wonder what the teachers at that school would claim is ‘age appropriate sex education’? Would I really want to give them a blank check like that, and find out what they’ll do with it?”
No, I wouldn’t. And neither would most other people.
But Barack Obama voted to do just that, on a “straight party line vote.”
So, glasnost, excellent try, but you fail.
What I quoted from Geraghty:
it’s clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
From the large pile of drivel that [glasnost] pasted in:
The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” — in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.
False. If they were just going to leave it at the pre-existing classes, they wouldn’t have needed to change the law.
And, in fact, once they started to catch grief over the law, “one of the bill’s original sponsors, State Sen. Carol Ronen, apparently rethought the age issue and introduced an amendment to shift it back to grade 6.”
So yes, it was an issue, and a legitimate one.
So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?
“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says.
Ah, so Obama was trying to bring “Heather Has Two Mommies” to IL Kindergarteners? If you think that’s a defense, go right ahead.
“No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse,” McDowell says. “I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”
If you’re teaching about AIDS and HIV prevention to K – 12, you’re as a minimum opening the door to be teaching about sex K – 12. If that’s not what you want to do, then write the law so it doesn’t do that.
This kind of thing is why Democrats lose elections, and why you deserve to lose them. This bill was about the Left attacking the rest of society in the Culture War. “We know the proper way to think, and we’re going to force it on you hicks.” Which is why it also changed (emphasis mine in both)
All public elementary, junior high, and senior high 20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual –intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.
This bill was boilerplate Leftist Culture War material. Obama voted for it on a straight party line vote. Why?
Because Obama is a Democrat Party hack. He’s not thoughtful, he’s not nuanced, he’s just another left-wing drone, this one with a pretty face and the ability to give a good speech (so long as it’s fed to him from the Teleprompter).
And he’s going to lose. He’s going to lose because the American people aren’t stupid, and are figuring him out, he’s going to lose because McCain is just a better campaigner than Obama, and he’s going to lose because McCain’s VP choice was a thousand times better than Obama’s.
I got this picture from The Anchoress. I title it “Don’t Fuck with Sarah”. It seems rather 9/11 appropriate:
Newsweek / MSNBC pundit Howard Fineman attempts to provide some cover for Senator Obama in his latest news analysis, but pretty much fails. But it’s a valiant effort, so I’ll mock it. 🙂
No, Barack Obama was not making fun of Sarah Palin when he talked about some Republican putting “lipstick on a pig.” He was trying to be colloquial
Yep, that’s why he stopped and waited for the laughs after saying “put lipstick on a pig”, instead of completing the entire phrase (“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”) and then waiting for the laughs. (This was obvious even before Obama went on Letterman and claimed that he was thinking of Palin as the lipstick, and McCain as the pig. Must burn to toss away your credibility, and then get tossed under the bus by Obama anyway.)
Here’s a hint, Howard, when you trash your credibility in the first paragraph, it’s not going to be a good article.
Declining to take federal financing for the general election
This mistake is two-pronged. Obama stands accused of flip-flopping on the matter, saying in 2007 that he’d accept those funds and the cash limits that come along with it.
Um, no. He doesn’t “stand accused of flip-flopping on the matter”, he is outright, 100.00% guilty of “flip-flopping on the matter”.
Declining McCain’s offer to hold ten town hall debates
When Obama was leading the race in leaps and bounds, he blew off this GOP proposal. Too bad. Had Obama locked in that deal, he would now be able to confront McCain face-to-face about some of the Republicans’ more aggressive – if not to say cynically manipulative – recent television advertising claims.
Obama declined those debates because he knows that he’s an empty suit, and the debates would have showed up that fact.
If he offered McCain the debates right now, McCain would probably take him up on it, and then proceed to take Obama apart. Which is why Obama won’t make the offer.
Failing to go all the way with the Clintons
Yes, I know, Bill and Hillary got prime speaking roles in Denver. And yes, I know, the Clintons are difficult to deal with and probably hope Obama fails. Still, it’s Obama’s task to latch on to them, even against their will. But he was too proud.
This is where I have the most sympathy for Obama, but also where I think he screwed up the most.
He was entirely right not to want a Clinton VP. OTOH, he could have gone to her (and Bill) a week after she conceded, and said “look, I’m not going to have you as my VP. You would make a lousy second banana, and I’m not going to screw up my Administration by picking someone as VP would wouldn’t be a good Vice-President. But I would like your advice on who I should pick as VP, and I’d like to work with you on some things that are important to you.”
IOW, feed their egos, stroke them, get them on board in ways that wouldn’t hurt him.
But his ego wouldn’t let him do that. He was going to win, with or without their help, and therefore they and their supporters needed to cultivate him, not the other way around.
The 22-state strategy
The Obama ego strikes again. He is The One, he can get anyone to vote for him.
Oh, and when you’ve got a ton of Other People’s Money, there’s not need to be “conservative” about spending it.
Failing to state a sweeping, but concrete, policy idea
It is not enough to be for change – everybody is, or is trying to be. To make it stick, Obama needed, and needs, to put forth an easy-to-grasp grand proposal, one that would encapsulate what his central message. [sic]
Obama’s “central message” is “love me, vote for me, because I am The One.” He doesn’t have any real policy proposals, because a: he’s an empty suit, and hasn’t bothered to think about what he’d actually do to make America better (his mere election is sufficient for that), and b: He’s a hard-core leftie. The American people won’t like his actual policies, so he must do everything he can to keep them hidden until the suckers elect him.
Remaining trapped in professor-observer speak
When you listen to Obama, it sometimes feels like you’re hearing a smart but distant analysis of the political scene. He sounds like a writer or teacher, but not the leader of a political crusade. Obama has been far too “meta” – a detached commentator on his own situation and his own country. Voters want an action plan, not an exegesis.
Um, you’re now complaining about the “core” of Obama. He has no “action plan”, and never has. He just is.
Failing to attack McCain early
Obama was wary of attacking a man who had suffered so much during the Vietnam War – an understandable emotion. But that wariness, combined with Obama’s natural inclination to be seen as the nice guy (one who lets others do the knifing) lead to an unfortunate result. It gave two free months for McCain to build up a head of steam as a war hero, as opposed to what Obama needed to paint him as publically: a man beholden to corporate interests and a likely clone of George W. Bush.
Ah, yes, that perennial compalint “gosh darn, we’re just too nice to win.” Tell it to Bristol Palin.
The problem isn’t that he hasn’t been attacking McCain. The problem is that the attacks haven’t worked. This is because the American people aren’t as dumb as you think they are.
The #3 recipient of Fannie Mae lobbying money doesn’t get to attack others for being “beholden to corporate interests.” You can’t honestly paint the leader of the Gang of 14 as “a likely clone of George W. Bush.”
So, what’s it like being so far in the tank (for Obama) that you’ve grown Gills?
In this Presidential campaign, we have the team that cares about the poor and middle class, and then we have the candidate who supports the powerful in their fight against the powerless.
First: the decent human beings:
John McCain supports vouchers so that poor people can send their children to decent schools, rather than the crappy inner city public schools.
Sarah Palin is a “PTA Mom“, and sends her kids to public schools that she’s fought to make better.
Now, the scum of the Earth:
Barack Obama opposes vouchers for poor and middle class families, while sending his children to private schools with tuitions in the $20,000 / year range (although, if you consider this a “defense”, he may only be paying 1/2 that). You see, public schools are “good enough” for the losers he wants to “take care of” as President, but they’re not good enough for his children.
I suppose that, like Jim Lindgren, you could be happy that he loves his children enough to want to get them a good education.
I, other the other hand, am not impressed. He’s not running for “World’s Best Dad” (and if he is, he’s failed for other reasons), he’s running for President of the United States. If he gave a damn about the people of America, he would favor all of them, not just the rich, getting good educations. But favoring that would put him in conflict with the Teacher’s Unions.
And when choosing between helping all Americans, or helping the Special Interests, Obama choose the Special Interests.
Because Obama, and the Democrats, only believe in “choice” when it involves avoiding taking responsibility for your actions.
This will be a continuing series. 🙂
High oil prices poured billions extra into state coffers over the past two years, and Palin’s proposal calls for socking away roughly $1.9 billion of that cash into a rainy day account where it would be tougher for legislators to spend.
To keep her operating budget from growing any larger, she said she’ll also direct her commissioners to look for $150 million worth of waste to slice from state spending.
Still, Parnell said the cuts are a realistic goal because of the steep increase in state spending.
“The budget’s gone from $2.2 billion to the $3.9 (billion) just in the last five or six years.”
If it’s grown that fast, there has to be waste involved! What a wonderful (and correct) attitude.
Note: It’s common to hear people running for office talking about how they’ll “cut waste” (rather than, you know, identify specific programs they’ll cut). My general response to that is “yep, you and the tooth fairy.” But this wasn’t candidate Palin talking about what she would do, this was Governor Palin saying “this is what I’m going to do this budget”.
I don’t know if she actually did it (and I don’t ahve the time to do the research right now). But I’m willing to believe her here, in a way I wouldn’t believe anyone who merely said it on the campaign trail.
But the quote that first caught my eye was this:
Palin’s budget doesn’t include money for mega projects that she supported as a candidate, such as the controversial Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan.
Asked if she’d changed her mind about the project, Palin said she will hash out where the bridge fits on the state’s list of priorities with the help of the Legislature and public.
“We have a limited pot of money of course, and we need to make wise, sensible choices,” she said.
Yes! That is the kind of person I want in government.
When I say “Russian Targets”, I mean “Russian Strategic Nuclear bombers and Cruisers.”
As the Russians announced:
Two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela on Wednesday as part of military maneuvers, the government said, announcing an unprecendented deployment to the territory of a new ally at a time of increasingly tense relations with the U.S.
Chavez also said plans for joint Russian-Venezuelan naval exercises in the region in November were currently being worked out, and said his closeness to the Kremlin would result in a cooperation that would “strengthen the country.”
His announcement confirmed an Interfax report in Russia citing the Russian defense ministry saying the bombers would be in Venezuela for training flights over “neutral waters.”
Thanks guys, I’m sure our guys will enjoy the practice tracking your planes.
Among the Russian ships to take part in the exercises would be the heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser Peter the Great, a vessel with massive firepower whose cruise missiles can deliver nuclear or conventional warheads.
The planes — huge supersonic combat aircraft similar to the US B1 bombers, capable of flying long missions with a heavy payload — are capable of carrying nuclear or conventional bombs and/or cruise and guided missiles.
I know the Bobbleheads are looking forward to getting to run tracking exercises on those boats in “US” waters.
What was that Obama was saying about Venezuela being “a tiny country that poses no threat”?
Yet another fine endorsement for Governor Sarah Palin
But she has angered two of Alaska’s leading Republicans — Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young — by refusing to support their decades-long practice of securing federal money for the state, including Young’s effort to obtain $233 million for a structure dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere” by critics because it would have connected a small town with an island populated with 50 people. In her short time in state office, she has repeatedly thwarted Stevens’s and Young’s interests and, at times, challenged their candidates — including their children.
Stevens and Young are greedy crooks. Getting them on the other side is one of her greatest achievements. (That’s not a slam of her other achievements. It’s a marker to the fact that what defines you best are the enemies you’ve made along the way. Making the right enemies is the mark of a good person.) Update: Here’s an NYT article from early 2007, written with the assumption that the Bridge would still be built:
Long after Congress removed about $450 million in budget earmarks for two bridges in the Alaskan exurbs, the fight over whether to build them is not dead. Mocked as “bridges to nowhere” by critics who saw them as the epitome of Congressional excess, preparations for the projects have been slowly moving forward even as big questions remain over whether the bridges will be built. When Congress removed the earmarks for the bridges in 2005, it still gave the state the money, but it allowed Alaskan officials to decide how to spend it. The state reserved about $200 million for the proposed bridges, far less than the construction costs but enough to show that there was serious intent to complete the projects. Some environmental and planning work has already been done.
So, in March, 2007, the NYT was still convinced that the Bridge to Nowhere would be built. It wasn’t. The reason why it wasn’t is Governor Sarah Palin.
Over in the post the I will not let die, someone calling himself “Bragan” decided to demonstrate just how separated “liberals” are from logic:
Greg, nobody is trying to deprive you of your hunting rifle. Hell, I don’t even want to deprive you of your hand gun if you want to carry it around with you so you can fend off the bad guys like Dirty Harry. But what I would like to do is make it more difficult for the bad guys — and let’s recognize that emotion can very often make a normally “good” person do very bad things — to possess a hand gun, through licensing, registration and greater penalties for illegal possession (and certainly there is no legitimate justificaiton for owning an assault rifle).
Anyone trying to restrict ammunition sales, or make it more expensive, is attacking my ability to hunt. Since my hunting rifle is an “assault rifle”, your desire to ban those is most certainly a desire to deprive me of my hunting rifle.
But, of course, the core of the matter is this:
But what I would like to do is make it more difficult for the bad guys — and let’s recognize that emotion can very often make a normally “good” person do very bad things — to possess a hand gun, through licensing, registration and greater penalties for illegal possession
The only rational way to read that is that you want to disarm everyone, since even “normally good people” can be “bad guys”, and you want to keep the “bad guys” away from guns.
Note that what you don’t want to do is actually punish the bad guys when they commit a crime. Nope, you want to engage in “prior restraint”, and keep “them” from having weapons in the first place. (After all, once they do commit a crime, then they’re “poor, misunderstood people who aren’t responsible for what they’ve done.” Yes, I’m extrapolating that part from other fruitcakes in your left-wing coalition. Deal.)
IOW, no sale.
My last post involved making fun of an idiotic comment on Megan McArdle’s post on “Coastal Elite Privilege. I wrote a comment there that I want to repeat here, because it nailed just the epitome of cluelessness.
“Well, what?” wrote:
And saying that “your right to own a gun won’t matter when you don’t have enough money to feed your children” isn’t condescending. It’s just true. Starving populations are singularly unconcerned with matters of civil justice.
Not only is it condescending, it’s false, and stupid.
My right to own a gun, and hunt, may very well be the difference between my children starving, and me being able to feed them food I’ve hunted.
My right to own a gun, and shoot anyone who tries to rob me, may be the difference between my food /rent money being stolen, and not.
One of the actions Governor Palin took was to extend the hunting season for returning members of the the Alaska National Guard, so they could get in more hunting time to feed their children.
You really do have to be stupid to be a “liberal”, don’t you?
I mentioned that she got a large number of comments from clueless “liberals” that prove her point. I’m going to make fun of this one, by a twit who calls himself “rush”.
BUT — that’s no excuse for them to continually vote against their interests. The politics of the coastal states is in line with the needs of working people in this country.
Um, no. “The politics of the coastal states” is in line with the desires of the coastal states residents. You have chosen to “give” the “working people in this country” things that you think they should want, and that you have decided should be more valuable to them than what you’re demanding from them.
They disagree. If they didn’t disagree, they wouldn’t be voting Republican. So, who’s the idiot? Them, for disagreeing with you? Or you, for being unwilling to change your offer to one they’d be willing to accept?
I understand their pain and can relate to it. Elitism in any form is bad and we need to unite as a nation.
Blah, blah, blah. Whine, bullshit, pile of crap. If you actually understood their pain, you wouldn’t go out of your way to inflict it.
But we can’t constantly back down from what we believe.
They (the “Kansas” / “flyover country” voters), can and should back down from what they believe, because they’re just dumb hicks who don’t understand the world around them. We coastal elites, with our superior understanding of the world, OTOH, we can’t back down.
Sorry, but gun control and abortion rights are important issues.
and therefore you dumb hicks need to give up your opinions on them and accept ours.
Not because we are elitists but because we see street violence and teenage mothers struggling around us. That’s a fact.
Two thoughts here. First: Wow, you’ve got all that gun control and abortion, yet still you have “street violence and teenage mothers.” Could it possibly be that gun control and abortion aren’t the answer? Naw. You can’t actually think about the issues, that’s a violation of your religion.
Gee, could it possibly be that Federalism would allow you to ban guns in your areas, while leaving our guns alone? Yes, it might have. Too bad you guys decided that the way to advance your unpopular agenda was to use left-wing “Justices” to override and rewrite the Constitution, and destroy that whole Federalism thing.
Second: Notice how the “elitists” “see” these things that the rest of us are just too blind to see, or too stupid to understand. Isn’t it kind of them to share their “wisdom” with us?
I am soooooo irritated this morning. The cynical politics of the right and how it might work again. I don’t have an answer to it. The pig lipstick comment taken out of context.
WAKE UP AMERICA.
Over the last week, I’ve been hearing a lot of things like this:
Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict: fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the perception — generally based on no evidence whatsoever — that Democrats look down their noses at regular people.
I’m surprised–though I shouldn’t be, of course–that any number of liberals who are (presumably) comfortable with concepts like unconscious discrimination and privilege when it comes to race, have not even stopped to consider that the same sort of thing might be operating here.
She then proceeds to get a large number of comments from clueless “liberals” that prove her point.
One non-clueless individual, Rob Lyman, made a point I wish to immortalize:
To put it in a nutshell, I don’t see how abortion is a fundamental constitutional right which must be defended at all costs when Democrats bring it up, but a stupid footling distraction from the important issues when Republicans bring it up.
Today Senator Obama demonstrated his ignorance by saying about Senator McCain and Governor Palin
You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.
So I thought I’d help poor Senator Obama, who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it come to animals
Now do you see the difference between a pig and a pitbull, Senator Obama?
The following is posted at the Oprah “Community”
Posted on Sep 5, 2008 10:46 AM
“The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.” – Oprah Winfrey, September 5, 2008
Which is to say, you won’t have her on while the campaign is going on.
So, let’s see, what did Drudge say:
Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America — but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!
Oprah’s staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
“Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on,” an insider explains. “Oprah’s website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama.”
So, exactly how is what Drudge said “categorically untrue”? Is it that they’re all in ideological lock-step, and none of them want Palin on? Is it that they’re not split: the staff all want her on, it’s just Oprah who’s opposed?
Or is Oprah just lying?
As they say: I report, you deride.
Wow, Politico really is a pathetic joke, isn’t it? Ben Smith & Carrie Budoff Brown wrote the following drivel Thursday:
As Sarah Palin transforms herself from obscure Alaska governor to
the Republican Party’s newest rising star and most effective attack dog, Barack Obama’s campaign will largely sit back, watch her rise and hope she falls.
The Obama campaign has no silver bullet to use against the Palin. Instead, Obama has decided to largely avoid directly engaging her and will instead keep his focus largely on John McCain [wow, you mean they’re going to focus on their actually opponent?] and on linking the Republican ticket to President George W. Bush. [Ah, yes, nothing says “desperation” like trying to link a sitting Senator to a term-limited President he’s repeatedly fought with. So much for actually trying to attack their opponent] The Obama campaign will leave Palin to navigate the same cycle of celebrity that Obama has weathered, and the same peril that her nascent image will be defined by questions and contradictions from her Alaska past.
Obama also avoided directly engaging Palin and her criticism. [Hard to counter criticism that’s all true, after all. Oh, well, I guess we won’t ever get to find out what a “community organizer actually is.] “John McCain’s running for president; I’m running against John McCain and as far as I can tell, I don’t get a sense that Gov. Palin has ideas that are different from John McCain’s,” [Oh, if only that were true] he told reporters in York, Pa., Thursday. “That speech she delivered was on behalf of John McCain and the essential question of this campaign is who’s got a better plan, a better agenda to move this country forward and fundamentally change it from the economic and foreign policy failures that we’ve seen over the last eight years.” [Yep, must reverse the defeat of the Taliban, and of Saddam. Must overturn victory in Iraq.]
Obama also suggested that he’d be relying on the same press that has obsessively examined his life to pick apart Palin’s. “You know the notion that any questions about her work in Alaska is somehow not relevant to her potentially being vice president of the United States doesn’t make too much sense to me,” he said. “I think she’s got a compelling story, but I assume that she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated, which means that their records are under scrutiny. I’ve been through this for 19 months. She’s been through it, what, four days so far?”
Democratic strategists said a week of media obsession would bring out negative elements of Palin’s record, her conservative positions on social issues, and stories contradicting some of her reformist claims.
Democrats also noted Thursday that as Palin continues to attack Obama, she opens herself to harder coverage and more direct criticism.
Hey,obsessively examining Obama’s life”? All that ground-breaking coverage you’ve been doing of Obama and the Annenberg Challenge? The coverage of how Obama’s destroyed his entire paper trail? That’s nothing compared to all the digging the MSM has done on Obama.
Now, if only I could remember exactly what it was that the MSM has dug up about him.
As for that “harsher coverage and more direct criticism”. As compared to, you know, accusing her of faking pregnancy to cover up her 17 year old daughter giving birth, or making up stories about her being a Buchanan / Nazi supporter (repeated later on in the article, despite the fact it’s been utterly debunked), or a member of the AIP.
No, now they’re going to get serious. They’re going to report on the time in the first grade when she cheated at Tiddlywinks.
Bring it on.