How Will They Slime Obama? COMPETITION! - Page 2

Well if you and Trump keep pulling soundbites from the mainstream media's ass and deciphering metaphorical jewels from his speeches, I have no worries from either of you.

Instead of an attention whore "moran" like State Senator Kirk Watson (a lot of these idiots orbit around potential presidential candidates - on both sides of the parties), try other 21st century technology like the Interweb...there are more links and opinions toward his experience than that Jubelum...


The Nation's early 2008 assessment was an honest and balanced profile for that time...


My two cents on Obama and "experience"...

I understand your reasons for thinking that a long tenure in executive office would be enriching and prove a candidate worthy for the presidency, but it can also taint. Seems the longer a politician is in the game, they become more corrupt, power hungry or stupid as time goes by. They also get older. A liability in my opinion. If Clinton had one important quality (and sexually his downfall, maybe) was his youth. I felt that it gave an energy within the White House and toward the American people that was beneficial (yeah, Reagan had it too, but thats called acting) for those times. Obama seems to have that energy.

So where's the "experience"? He's making it, earning it and will most definitely learn from it. As most young politicians do, well some do...some have the hardest time doing the most simple things.*

Now trumptman, I'll try only in convincing you with these, Obama's interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt in 2007....Short speech, then a (unscripted) Q & A with Schmidt and members of the audience.

More unscripted face to face interviews...

Obama interview by South Bend Tribune Part 1

Obama interview by South Bend Tribune Part 2

Obama interview March 22, 2008

Barack Obama answers BlogHer's questions May 2008

No, you may not come back after these with a different opinion, but view them if you can. Whatever is being shown on MSM (which for me is non-existent) isn't presenting the whole picture anymore, the unfiltered information that's more grass roots. No blathering talking heads, no attention seeking nimrods, no commercials or corporate cow towing media manipulations.

As for his speech writing, it is the most eloquent, emotional and thought provoking speeches in a long, long time. Whatever you're deciphering from them baffles me. Soon you will reveal he's the anti-christ (and no, I don't think he's a messiah either, just human like all of us) or a Borg.

But I will agree on one point and I am anticipating this...I want to see how he handles McCain via town halls, debates or whatever celebrity media road show the MSM foists at him.

It will hinge on whether I vote for him or not. Though from my standpoint, the shit he went through already shows that he can take it. We'll see.

I predict one thing, that this thread will go past the infamous 'Teh Surge" thread and beyond

* We're even.

Under all circumstances the candidate's wife (or husband) is a valid part of the calculation that goes into voting for president. In the US the first spouse is a defacto ambassador and representative of the White House/US.

When Bush Sr ran it was "What are we going to do about Barbara?"

When Clinton ran it was "Two for one".

When Bush Jr ran it was I don't remember what.

Now that it's Obama and Michelle the spouse is now off limits and criticizing her is a illegitimate slime? Besides she's out there on her own talking about her husband. If she didn't say dumb stuff we wouldn't be talking about her. Barak didn't get the muzzle on fast enough.

Well I apologize for that whole "reading the text" thing since here is what you typed.


While you may not like how they bring it up or the way the point will be made, the point itself is still a very valid point. Let me ask you though, if the candidate is portraying himself as a cross between Abraham Lincoln, Che Guevara, Chandi and Nelson Mandela, and you portray him as what he really is... a normal politician, is that wrong or worse still... racism?


I didn't say it was a valid criterion and I doubt McCain himself will go after her. It will be something surrogates do though because politics is politics. When Bush was running for president it wasn't Al Gore who ran an ad linking him with the dragging death of a black man. It was the NAACP that did that as an example. Also the thread isn't about whether something is valid or not to use. You asked how we thought they would go after Obama and I AGREED with you that they would go after his wife and even gave the rationale they would use.

Geesh... you are pissy even when I say you are right!

Obama got a purple heart for a booboo.

I wonder what a Democratic version of the swiftboating of Kerry would look like. Maybe something like this:

McCain was collaborating with the Vietnamese while allegedly being "imprisoned."
Traitor McCain's TV confessions while in Vietnam could be made into attack ads.
Traitor McCain whined about being subjected to frat-boy hazing at the hands of his Vietnamese captors.

And if anyone says there's something wrong with it, well McCain himself has been talking endlessly about it, so it's fair game.

" Traitor McCain whined about being subjected to frat-boy hazing at the hands of his Vietnamese captors. "

Jeez guys, the man can't even comb his own hair, for being continually tortured -- having his arms broken repeatedly.

Maybe that's not funny?

It would be terribly wrong to run such a campaign, wouldn't it? But McCain is the one who brings it up all the time, so if Democrats wanted to use it, it would be fair game by 2004 standards.

Maybe Democrats should wear purple heart boo-boo casts on their arms to the 2008 convention?

That's were you guys start going of the reservation, if there's one thing that McCain isn't is someone who takes war lightly, or has any patience for torture. I don't think it's sane strategy to go there.

Is "making fun of the cripple" where the DNC is at?

But then come to think of it, the guys' honked the conservatives repeatedly, and is no fiscal conservative -- so from a Leftist perspective, what is there to really criticize?

*Whoosh*

Are you serious, man?

This is just what a Democratic version of swiftboating would look like. It's not fo realz.

I understand, but there's no comparison, and it doesn't stand any scrutiny. The only thing that can be said is it was gauche to make light of a kid on a night patrol in Nam -- who you couldn't have driven a sixteen-penny nail up his sphincter with a sledgehammer.

Kerry's wounds were superficial at best. McCain went through living hell for five years -- and is disabled for life -- why bring it up?

dmz, you are right about a hypothetical swiftboating of McCain being wrong, and you were wrong about the very real swiftboating of Kerry being right.

Well, sure, savage mockery is only crazy when it's directed against a Republican, because Republicans are inherently honest, self-sacrificing men of honor, whose biographies are a testament to our deepest, most ennobling values.

To mock a John McCain is to mock the very idea of integrity and bravery-- although that would be par for the course for the valueless, craven liberals.

Mocking a John Kerry, on the other hand, is to expose the inherent fraudulence that lies at the heart of every liberal biography. When liberals claim bravery or integrity it actually demeans the qualities themselves, to be yoked into the service of such shriveled theatrics.

Just ask Max Cleland.


It's true-- that are exactly two possible kinds of politician in America-- those that are satisfactory to the most retrograde elements of our society, and those that are not. Once you've left the former camp, it's unclear what useful distinctions can be made among the latter.

Re: McCain and torture-- better update the nobility talking points. That principled shit was for before he needed to win over the base, and if there's one thing the base likes, it's torture. It's part of what makes the Republican Party so gosh darn likable.

No, I think I said the same thing during the 2004 elections. Anybody who thinks it's easy to go out on a night patrol with bad guys running around, probably needs to walk a mile in somebody's jungle boots.

Now, Kerry's behavior after he got back was borderline contemptible -- he was a rich kid who saw some action, not Beowulf. 'Probably was testifying how he raped babies when McCain was in the can over there.

Yes, but if McCain stretched the truth about what he went through, or where he was or wasn't, then he would be opening himself up to legitimate criticism. As to the toture thing, AFAIK, I haven't heard anything other than "it's a big no-no" coming from him.

Regardless, will you be having Liberal, or Extra Liberal, this November, sir? (I'll be at the bar drinking with the Libertarians if you need me.)

... viral emails, after all it's fair game, given that the Grand Old Party surrogates are using this very same tactic against Obama.

Five and a half years in captivity must have some effect on one's sanity, one's mindset, one's psyche. We know MaCrazy is a hot head, and you have to wonder that. if given the chance with respect to Iran, if McStrangelove would pull the McWMD trigger. And let's talk up McBush's paranoia about America's enemies abroad, you know the Axis of Evil (AoE). And since McBush understands first hand how terrible war can be, he would surely visit it on others, than have it visited upon ourselves, however remote the probability of an actual attack from another sovereign nation or terrorist group. McBush's paranoia is meant to put the fear of the almighty itself into the hearts of the American people. If they don't attack us militarily, they will attack us economically, and if not economically, then they will attack our surrogates in the Middle East (Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, etceteras).

Simply put, a vote for McBush, is a vote for WWIII.

Oh, and McSenile is is like really old too, can't forget that, in fact put these three pictures together;

[CENTER]
McFlipper[/CENTER]

Given that how in your very next post above, just a few minutes later, you repeat the swiftboat charges that Kerry falsified his combat experience, I'd say you're not focusing just on his anti-war activities when he got back, dmz.

That's what this is about. They said Kerry lied about his combat experience. You went along with it and repeated it. I wondered what it would hypothetically be like if Democrats played the same game, and you immediately criticized it. Well duh, of course it should be criticized if it happened.

And there are tapes of McCain making anti-American confessions on Vietnamese TV after torture. Is there any doubt, if McCain was a Democrat, that we'd be seeing them all the time?

I don't think so, there were some allegations made about atrocities that he had seen, that he had been places he hadn't, that sort of thing. As far as going on patrol, he did.


Only if this were a Tim Burton movie.

Kerry did "lie" about his combat experences. He had a Hillary type of moment where he tried to recall where he was on Christmas night and basically got it wrong in a way he should have known was wrong. It had nothing to do with medals but if some were to say that "Kerry lied about his combat ..." that would be defencible. Don't kill the messenger (me).

McCain has already been thoroughly swiftboated in 99/2000 and again this year by republicans, freepers and other political allies of yours, dmz.

The difference being, the "liberal media" thinks that the Kerry swiftboating is an endlessly fascinating topic of "controversy", because it fits with the lazy, preexisting master narrative of Democrats being forever suspect on matters of "manliness", "bravery", and "national security."

Whereas we will never hear much about McCain's trouble with certain vets, because the flip side of the same narrative holds that Republicans are rough and ready sorts, hell bent for leather, etc.

As we've already seen, any oppo research that paints Obama as effete, elitist, fey, soft, unmanly, etc. will get the MSM's attention, while any attacks on McCain won't be from that direction, because, for the MSM, the idea of a Republican presidential candidate being "effete" or "elitist" is literally impossible.

There is an interesting twist here, though: Obama must be portrayed as effete and elitist while simultaneously reminding us that he is a scary negro-- a figure usually painted as thuggish, violence prone and crudely sexual-- and these are dissonant messages.

I assume this will be resolved by making Obama the effete but calculating catspaw of the simmering Nation of Islam that backs him. Embittered faggots are easy to twist, you see.

Anyway, since he makes it part of his story, I guess McCain's time in a Vietnamese prison camp is "fair game", yeah?

Now, mind you, no one is impugning the man's bravery or fortitude, but disturbing questions remain.

I'm sure we could find a psychiatrist or two or a hundred that could paint us a chilling portrait of the lasting effects of torture and incarceration on the human psyche.

Again, in all due respect to the man's sacrifice, how do we know he won't pull the trigger on some insane military option because he's driven by the demons that haunt him still? Don't we have the right have him examined by an impartial expert, to see if he's given to fits of uncontrollable rage, which is something I've heard said?

In fact, it shouldn't be that hard to find a former staffer or two or a hundred that would regale us with lurid tales of the "real" John McCain, sweating and trembling and crying when the cameras are gone and the pills wear off.....

I mean, I wouldn't bring it up, except for the fact that McCain himself has made kind of a big deal about it, and the American people have a right to know if John McCain is a ticking time bomb just one match away from blowing up the world.

Not his fault, of course, and he deserves the thanks of a grateful nation, but not to the extent of letting a potential psychotic kill-bot get his finger on the Button.

But all the facts aren't in yet, I'm just saying it's something we need to talk about, all the time. That's what a free exchange of ideas is all about, after all.

When Bush, Jr. ran, it was "holy shit my wife ran a stop sign and killed someone with her car when she was a teenager and we'd better make up a story about how she doesn't want to be involved in the politics stuff even though she campaigned for Bush in the 70s."

But basically, Bush said she was off-limits.

As far as smearing, I fully anticipate a a push poll in South Carolina asking people if they would be less likely to vote for Obama if they learned that he had fathered McCain's illegitimate black child.

In other words, it only happens to Democrats.

No no no. Hilary was treated with kid gloves all through the 92 campaign and all the way up to present. Neither the MSM, nor any right-wing outlets, did so much as point a finger at her. Or Chelsea.

Yeah, some allegations were made. And that's very big of you to say he did go on patrol.

Do you not think that people could find some inconsistencies about what McCain said? "McCain claimed he was shot down over Hanoi on June 13, but it was really the 12th and it was actually a little town outside of Hanoi! Traitor!"

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRGGGG!!

It doesn't matter BRussell, if we live long enough, we'll sit here four years from now, and I'm going to ask you why president Obama (and yes, he will win, McCain has less of a chance of winning than Dole did) didn't "fix" SS, or do anything help our current account deficit, levels of personal debt, education --- and on and on and on.

It's not worth getting excited about. Most of the things that really matter are in the control of our day-to-day decisions. And when things finally get bad enough, with national things like SS or when America finally has to hit the bus station bathrooms for ready cash, maybe the politicians will be some help.

The whole country is living in four levels of Disneyland, just sit back, save your money and watch the trainwreck.

It does matter. The kind of bullshit that we're complaining about, and that you are defending, got us 8 years of Bush.

Now you take that back, Mr. Smartypants -- other than cratering the Iraq thing, what could dubububububububububua do to avert our biggest problems?

Yeah, I'd say it's the primary reason our political system doesn't solve problems.

I'm serious guys, what could anyone do to stop the the weak dollar, the rise in oil, and the mortgage fiasco? (I admit the weak dollar is due in part to the Fed's monetary policy.) Then there's the Enron/Price Waterhouse Coopers thing, and 9/11, etc.

Granted, DHS was a colossal mistake, and Rice needs to be shot for being History's biggest intellectually weak sister, but what would any of that do for the economy, or our education system, or our health care? He tried to fool with SS and had his head handed to him.

Edit: and NCLB is probably as close as we are going to get to 100% bureaucratic tender loving educational care, without going A Clockwork Orange on the students.

He could have paid attention to terrorism, like Clinton was doing at the end of his term. But he didn't.

He could have kept the troops in Afghanistan, but he didn't.

He could have not invaded Iraq, but he didn't.

He could dumped tens of billions into renewable energy, but he didn't.

He could have dumped tens of billions into non-car transportation systems like trains, but he didn't.

He could have seen to it that NOLA and the MS gulf coast were both somewhat rebuilt 3 years after they were devastated, but he didn't.

Nope, uh-uh. Meet Nguyen Qui Duc...


If Frontline says so, it must be true. \

You know they will fly over these two for any damage control. Because if you do go to the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain they have a lot of allegations...

But it totally baffles me, I think that when Reagan died, they peeled off the Teflon and glued it on him. No matter what allegations or even blatant asshattery anyone brings up, it slides right off...

Clinton was in the same fog as BushCo, I don't blame either of them, except to say that they are guilty of being sandbagged. Not to harp, but I think I'm the only one who remembers the unusual number of "security alerts" at the nation's airports in the Summer of 2001 -- and thinking "what do they know that I don't?"

Afghanistan, maybe -- that's not winnable, though; if W had ever tried to push Nukes he would, fact be nuked, (and then blamed for being in bed with Big Energy); trains? I guess; NOLA, I don't think anyone can counter that level of incompetence and corruption -- on the national level that goes into the "oh, let's get more bureaucracy to solve our problems" file.

At any rate, what could any of these things have done? We know that nukes and electric cars are probably "the" answer to the high cost of energy, but who is doing anything about it? Pelosi -- who was "going to clean up the house" and promised us out of Iraq? Nothing has been done. We can't even stop the ethanol madness. We want the oil company executives in front of the Senate to ask them "why they keep the price of oil so high" but wont build new refineries, when we really don't want people using more gas, but then whine when the market gives us just that -- It's insane.

But still none of this would keep the commodities down, or keep us from mortgaging our future, or eating ourselves to death, or making certain our kids are up to Indian and Chinese educational standards.

Now we have Obama telling us "change" is coming -- what is he about to do? Tax us and give us "free" healthcare, and throw more money at an orgy? Is he going to ramrod Nukes? Tell China and India to not consume? And our current account deficit?

I can't care anymore, they're not going to do anything until there is a crisis.

Blueprint for Change (pdf)

You asked.