It's the Obama Photo and Caption Thread! - Page 3

I thought the emo-Obama cute.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?

One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

The other kills her own food.

This message has been approved by the bloggers of Iran and their invisible walls.

Already answered that...

I view Palin pretty much like this.

Yes we all remember he has 300 foreign policy advisers to think for him, but Palin is terrible because she used a speech writer.

Obama has had his share of duck and cover. He wasn't exactly out there after the Wright incident. He withdrew for a bit after a press conference in which he answered I believe it was nine questions before bailing (it was going very badly for him), wrote a speech (his solution to pretty much everything) and then reemerged when the feeding frenzy was over.

Also Palin has to support McCain. It is interesting that not having a completely separate platform apart from the presidential nominee somehow makes one "empty." We all have seen Biden already toss aside his own positions to support Obama. Can you point to the plethora of policies, statements and initiatives he has in mind apart from or possibly in disagreement with the Obama platform?

Hired help is hired help. If one is "empty" for hiring a speech writer, then one is "empty" for needing 300 foreign policy advisers.


Reality sounds like made up shit then because this is recent. I'm not going to go rehash the entire month of March for you.


If the butcher has served as long in executive positions as the baker has served in legislative positions, then I'll pick the butcher thank you.


Talk about your non-sequitur, I didn't know being attractive was sexist. I guess now any time someone is attractive it really means yes, you should give up your job, go home and be barefoot in that kitchen with your five kids.

I can totally see the connection there so thanks.


Wow... now all I have to do is give a shit about the Jed Report. The spin on not offering access until the storm blows over is just that, spin.

The Wright videos broke on the 13th of March. Obama didn't give his speech for five days. I guess that is five days of "not ready" at the top of the ticket.

Or it could be, no evil intent of course, that campaigns have learned to manage the media since the media at times creates a self-perpetuating bullshit cycle. Duke university anyone? It is called giving the idiots enough rope to hang themselves with. The media have done a great job of it so far.


"Well" is relative in this case. Obama withdrew and gave a speech. Obama went from having big momentum to holding on by the skin of his teeth while his surrogates kept complaining that Hillary wouldn't bail early on the race. Leading in this instance is very misleading because he is so far below the generic advantage Democrats have in the race.

Check out this smooth handling of the press.

Tony Rezko, I'll see ya guys. Bye.

There have been several reports I have read about how extensive the list of off-topic subjects is when interviewing Michelle or Barack Obama.

But seriously, same bullshit, different day. Hillary is a strong woman. Palin, how dare she put her shoes on and leave that kitchen! Obama hires 300 advisers because he is so smart. Palin uses a speechwriter (something Obama does as well) and it is proof she is vegetative. Obama has given press conferences and so has Palin but when Obama address the matter until the media will let him get his story out there, or until a speech can be written, that is brilliant. When Palin does the same thing, it is "empty."

The best part of all of this though is that everytime the argument is made that Palin and Obama suffer from the same deficits and a comparison is made, it highlights why the top of the Democratic ticket is problematic. The argument is a loser all around. Palin is 72% unqualified while Obama is merely 47% unqualified (by the reasoning of each party making the argument of course) but Obama loses if the discussion even takes place.

I think you just made my point for me. I specifically said he does exclusive interviews with preconditions as opposed to press conferences. Thanks for making my point for me.


Oh I thought she didn't have a public stance to align in the first place since she was incapable of even thinking. Now it is that she has one and it is so aligned that it won't have to change. I think you just proved my point for me again.


So apparently the only public stances on "the most important issues relevant to the American people" that you want her to discuss are those in which she disagrees with McCain.

The press was able to dredge up any position or even statement they felt would be controversial within 12 hours of her announcement. We've got people posting links to a letter detailing one woman's version of the last 12 years of town gossip and politics and somehow there isn't enough info out there.

We know how much was spent on the sports park in Wasilla but somehow, there isn't enough info out there.

The reality is that everything she has ever done has already been gone over and the media has thrown it out there in a shit storm trying to kill her nomination before it even got out of the gate. It hasn't worked and soon, when they want to discuss more than whether she should go home to her kitchen, or whether she should step down before giving her great speech, then she will be happy to entertain them.

I put my information out there. You've put yours out there. You don't need to waste time complaining about my posting style or attacking me.

Your "truth" has a little problem with it. The press conference you link to was held much later than the time frame we are discussing. That conference was held after Wright went and made additional statements about Obama just being a politician. Obama then finally came out and condemned him. Your video is dated April 29th. We are talking about a story that broke around March 13th.

I guess we could take that time frame as proof of engaging the press which means Palin gets a good what... five more weeks.

Also here is what I said and please read it and stop selectively quoting it.

[B]He withdrew for a bit after a press conference in which he answered I believe it was nine questions before bailing (it was going very badly for him), wrote a speech (his solution to pretty much everything) and then reemerged when the feeding frenzy was over.[/B]


Across several of the replies you have selectively quoted me and then attacked me as a liar each time without truly addressing what I said. I am asking you to stop. There is nothing that I have typed there that contradicts what you claim so stop the attacks.

Understand that I have not said Obama was terrible for avoiding the media feeding frenzy. I give it no ill intent. I have observed that Obama doesn't do well in any forum where he isn't reading words off a teleprompter so I want as much of that as possible. I want 10 presidential debates, 10 townhalls and daily press conferences from both of them. I want this as opposed to large stadiums full of people cheering empty platitudes.

I have no doubt that Palin will engage in press conferences and interviews soon. I also have no doubt that when she does she will do great. We already have footage from past interviews to know how she will do so it really isn't some shot in the dark. It is easy to understand the media motivations in attacking Palin. Both parties skew toward different sexes and anything that would cut into even a portion of that skew would sentence the other party to losing. There is a serious concern about this for Democrats because once a voter is peeled away, it is harder to win them back this term. Perot did it to conservatives twice and gave Clinton 8 years in the White House.

Those 18 million voters are out there right now and while most of them will go back to the party, if just 3% of them don't that gives Republicans another 540,000 votes nationwide. That could be pretty much the election right there, three percent of one group.


Could you name the positions please instead of just eluding to them. You listed dozens of areas where you know her positions and know they are in agreement with McCain. A website like OnTheIssues.org seems to find plenty of information on her stances.


I think I just posted a huge answer to your questions. Perhaps I misread your reply but I saw your list as areas where you already knew she agreed with McCain and that you wanted to discuss other "important issues" not on that list.


When reading instead of selectively quoting, the information is there. I posted the Rezko press conference. I noted the date of the Wright story breaking, the date of his speech, the timeframe between the two and whether you agree with it or not, did explain how he handled that problem. I've also now linked to a source that provides answers to her positions and also cites sources to support those positions.

I've eluded to the letter that several people in this forum have linked to that gives a negatives characterization of pretty much everything Palin has ever done. I didn't post it in this thread but I mentioned in another the ABCnews sexist assertion about whether Palin should be taking the VP slot when she has small children.

That is information. I've been called a liar three times and now been accused of being a space case as a rebuttal.

You didn't agree to it. It was brought up by someone else and so I noted it.

As for saying things not true, repeat it as much as you want. Evidence stands on its own. It doesn't need extra personal attacks to help support it. Evidence doesn't even need to be characterized.


Please support these facts. So far we have one Fox interview and a link to an press conference that was six weeks later. I can't prove a negative. I claim he didn't do anything. You claim he did. You have to provide the something to disprove the nothing.


Obama did hide from it and that is why he was still having to address it almost six weeks later. If the media weren't in the bag for him, they would have brought it up a year prior and likely killed his candidacy instead of waiting for when the Clinton campaign slung it. He still is ducking Rezko and Annenberg.

There has been no refutation. I specifically said Obama did one press conference. The claim of multiple press conferences has not been substantiated in any form or fashion.


Correct and I linked to that video here and also correctly attributed it to Rezko. I noted that Obama will leave when the questioning is not to his liking. The voiceover from the video notes the same thing.



This isn't about the statements, but about the person making them.


This characterizes the poster instead of just addressing the statement.


I'll stand by my statements. They are strong enough to support themselves without me having to resort to names to strengthen them.


No problem. Calling them lies in ten different ways is indeed a means of attack. It is clear that partial quotations and assertions do not stand up to actual facts. This is why partial quotations and assertions need to kill the messenger a bit to try to be effective.


A one on one interview and a press conference six weeks later is not proof of engaging the media frenzy.


We've got our stakes in the sand. We can come back after November and see if Palin avoided the press that entire time.


Palin has many comments that reflect her current post of Governor. However this appears to be a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition. If she were commenting all the time on federal matters as a governor, then I am sure she would be considered terrible then as well.

I'm more than happy to read your opinions on this matter and I do hope they inform those who read them. As I've noted when the snowbilly, the national embarassment, the negative name de jour whips all over Biden, it will just make the satisfaction that much sweeter and the letdown will be that much further of a fall.


Ah, well I can find my answers just fine. Sorry you can't find yours.


I'll be happy to listen to any explanation as to why you do not quote me fully and then attack the partial quote characterizing it as a lie. Most who read the entire thread understood what I meant.


No problem. In reality outside of these boards it is easy to ignore anyone who is lying completely and meritless in their assertions. If what you say is true, then my statements here should be easy to ignore and don't even merit addressing since they are so clearly so unpersuasive and false.

The other possibility though is that they are very persuasive and true and that people need to kick up a bunch of dust as hopeful distractions from the points they make.

Here is what I said. I said Obama tried a press conference on the Wright matter and it went very badly. He disappeared for five days and reappeared with the speech. Any access he grants to the press has been on his terms and he gets to those terms by granting "exclusive" interviews with the person who then tows the Obama line. You and others post links to these interviews and demand I note that Obama does engage the press. I've said he will engage the press on his terms, speeches and interviews with preconditions or not at all. The claim put forth is also (distorted) that Obama somehow has never engaged the press. I specifically said that when there is a media firestorm he waits it out as does every smart politician. It is of course only with a Republican where this normal behavior becomes "evil" and proof of being a "snowbilly" and "empty skirt."

A press conference is not just some guys shouting questions as he boards the bus. It is a formal occasion where the press is called in all at once. We've all seen video of politicians being chased into a car or out of a plane and they wave, smile and either address or ignore the questions tossed at them. Often they address the initial question about a controversy with their spin response and then conveniently don't hear the follow up so that is the only footage they have to air. I've seen it from politicians of all stripes. I'm not putting any party above that.


No problem. I've given this enough time. I'm happy with what is out there. After this you can scream liar ten times and all I'll see is the ignore.


Sorry if I pop in here for 15 minutes and don't' keep a list of every link I have ever read. You can only catch such things as asides anyway since no one likes to discuss this side of the media. It is like talking points, conference calls to campaign officials, pre-made "homemade" signs, etc. People like to think this stuff is all spontaneous when it reality it is all managed. Obama noted he "cheated" a bit when at the Saddleback forum because he researched an item he knew they were going to already talk about. The news about that event also noted that both campaigns had a broad outline of the issues that were going to be addressed and how they would be brought up.(not specific wording though) On the View when two of the hosts were complaining at each other, one noted that Cindy McCain hadn't come with a list of off-topic subjects while Michelle Obama had. I linked to an article a few months back that had a very Democratic friendly reporter (I'm having Andrea Mitchell pop into my brain) complain about the complete lack of press access during the world tour. She noted all they got was B-roll and then the major anchors were getting their interviews.

Enjoy.