noee said:
This isn't a breaking story, is it?
How many more opportunities does he need? I mean everyday that goes by is another wasted opportunity for him. I guess his speech writers are trying to spin it just "Wright".
Obama
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
This isn't a breaking story, is it?
How many more opportunities does he need? I mean everyday that goes by is another wasted opportunity for him. I guess his speech writers are trying to spin it just "Wright".
noee said:
Yes he does. As the American Thinker article points out, the moment of truth for both Obama and the Democrat Party has arrived. It is time for Obama and the Democrat Party to forcefully repudiate the far Left. That includes Wright, Ayers, etc.
I don't think he can. Why?
17 years. How can Obama say it? "Wright is a racist". "Black Liberation Theology is Marxist and Racist" No weasel words allowed. Direct and to the point. "The far-Left is the new KKK and we have dealt with this before as a nation"
Those would be the words of a candidate that wants to Unite this country.
haha, Obama just gave a press conf denouncing Wright and his comments. I don't have the transcript yet, this is huge. He specifically denounced Wright's comments from the NPC speech.
It looks like Hillary has made the proper decision to stay in the race. It appears she will now get the nomination. Unfortunate, I was hoping for Obama. The Clintons are political genius incarnate.
It looks like Hillary has made the proper decision to stay in the race. It appears she will now get the nomination. Unfortunate, I was hoping for Obama. The Clintons are political genius incarnate.
noee said:
Obama's problem is that I don't think Wright said anything that he hasn't already said in some other venue. The LSM's luv fest with Obama kept it under the radar to enable Obama to get this far. I will only be a matter of hours/days before Obama will have to contradict himself or go soft again. Already the press is saying that the Wright / Obama dustup is prearranged to give Obama the appearance of ideological distance.
noee said:
I agree. Obama is damaged goods. McCain will now have a more formidable opponent.
By throwing Wright under the bus Obama just raised the primary Presidential qualification question
Judgement
He will be hammered into the ground on this. While issues are important, character and judgement are more important. In the case of Obama he has demonstrated 20 years of misjudgement, IF you believe him.
Judgement
He will be hammered into the ground on this. While issues are important, character and judgement are more important. In the case of Obama he has demonstrated 20 years of misjudgement, IF you believe him.
MarkP said:
:bs: Complete, utter and absolute bullshit. Is it at all possible to be any greater hypocrite?
Oh yeah, when you say stuff like this....
MarkP said:
The last seven and a half years have reminded most of us just how deficient the current occupants of the White House are in the "character" and "judgement" aspects. And just how many "moments of truth" are there? According to you, these "moments" are almost daily occurances for the Dems. Unfortunately, Bush & Co has never had one.... Like when twenty congresspersons of your own party tell you to your face "you have no credibility left" or a dozen generals forced into early retirement tell you "you have placed our nation in peril" or "you are breaking our great army." Bush & Co have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt - except for the most ideologically constipated - that character, judgement, and veracity are irrelevant. Just two days ago, Bush continued to insist that we are winning in both Iraq and Afghanistan...and some folks *still* believe him. I've asked you before to show me *any* accomplishments during this administration. Since you brought it up, show me any positive examples of character and/or judgement on the part of Bush & Co. No doubt, you'll just weasel out the way you always do when asked a direct question....
How is it possible to sum up this administration? Dick Cheney did it admirably only recently. When asked by an interviewer about the fact that 81% felt that we were on the wrong track in both domestic and foreign policy,and that combat deaths were increasing, and basically things looked pretty shitty all-around, Cheney replied with a sneer and just one word: "So?"
There it is...carve that in stone for future generations to see. That's a true, defining monument to this administration.
God-damnit Sandy, stay on topic. This is the Obama thread. Recourse to the now-damned Obama campaign is not more Bush bashing. Everybody knows Bush has completely fucked everything up and that he is the quintessential Manchurian Candidate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_el_pr/obama
He's speaking for the public now.....what a pompous ass.
He's speaking for the public now.....what a pompous ass.
noee said:
He can't do it. He is obsessed with Bush. It's kind of spooky. We could be talking about chocolate pudding and he would vomit more Bush hatred.
noee said:
It is relevant to the extent that McCain is campaigning on an extension of the Bush policies for another 4 years. Granted, that's not what McCain was running on before, but it is now. This thread is about smearing Obama with lies and dishonest right wing talking points, so part of the counter argument is pointing out the abysmal alternative. If you acknowledge that Bush has fucked things up completely, why would you want repubs for another 4 years to fuck things up further? They are rotten to the core, if McCain gets elected, nothing changes.
vray said:
No it's not. It is about who Obama really is by studying his words, votes and relationships. His thoughts, character and judgement.
Obviously even his mentor Rev. Wright agrees Obama is trying to hide his past.
Bottom line, Obama is not who he says he is.
Why is it that the Left cannot run on its belief's and positions, that it must run on euphemism's like "Change"?
vray said:
I agree about McCain, he scares me worse than Bush. :ack:
What are the lies and smears about Obama?
When did I say I wanted another four years of repugs? I don't. But I'm not pleased with the Dem controlled Congress either. Why won't the Dem controlled Congress do anything about the corruption in our financial systems or Iraq or Afghanistan or Health Care costs or Gas Prices? I'm so confused. :banghead:
Brass tax: I don't think anything's gonna change regardless of who gets elected.
So, back to Obama. He's a in real pickle right now. What will he do if he loses NC and IA? What card can Hillary play to keep him on the defensive?
What's great about Obama is he has come in at just the right time. Bush has royally jacked shit up for the GOP. I financially supported the GOP when Bush ran (both times), but with the economy, Iraq, and lack of action or smart decisions, I can't keep supporting the GOP direction. So the next best thing is to support the most reasonable other option. I was backing Ron Paul, but since he's out Obama is next in line.
RETROV said:
I've never understood this line of thinking.
On budget
Ron Paul - Cut spending by $150B per year
Obama - Increase spending by $287B per year
That's a $1.75Trillion difference per 4 year termObama - Increase spending by $287B per year
On Iraq - from Ron Paul's perspective, as recently as Monday, March 10, 2008
CNN: The flip side of that coin, you are the only Republican calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. If you're not going to become President and be in a position to affect that, would they be better off voting for the Democratic candidate?
Paul: I don't think so. I don't think they're very sincere. If you look at Obama's voting record, he's voted not to end the war. He's voted to finance the war. His rhetoric is playing to the people that come my way but he is every bit as much of an -- He wants to send more troops into Afghanistan. He wants to broaden the military. I think it's a fraud what he's talking about when he wants to really get out of Iraq. I think that's politics.
Paul: I don't think so. I don't think they're very sincere. If you look at Obama's voting record, he's voted not to end the war. He's voted to finance the war. His rhetoric is playing to the people that come my way but he is every bit as much of an -- He wants to send more troops into Afghanistan. He wants to broaden the military. I think it's a fraud what he's talking about when he wants to really get out of Iraq. I think that's politics.
Looks like Ron feels the same way about Obama as the Rev. Wright does, that he tells you what you want to hear, not what he believes in.
On the economy
Ron Paul - correcty identifies the Fed as part of the problem
Obama - can't even grasp the concept of the Laffer Curve
Obama - can't even grasp the concept of the Laffer Curve
The only logical conclusion is that a vote for Obama is a vote against Clinton/Bush. The problem with that is the impact of that outcome.
Why am I not surprised. The Democrats are blaming their Obama / Hillary quagmire on President Bush.
Aller gegen alle
The Belmont Club
So we shouldn't be surprised when Sandy blames Bush for everything . . . . . . in an Obama thread.
Time for the Democrat Party to look in the mirror. The problem isn't Bush, it is the person in the mirror.
Aller gegen alle
The Belmont Club
Those of you who remember the Three Stooges will recall the scenes in which the middle Stooge bops the other two when they aren't looking, causing them to turn on each other while he watches in glee. If you think the Three Stooges are infantile, just wait until you see the Democratic Party. James Wolcott writing in Vanity Fair is almost on the verge of saying this, but hangs back at the edge simply because he has to pretend that politics is serious. . . . .
. . . . What was playing was a double-feature: Forbidden Planet and a Simple Plan. The Democratic candidates look as good as ever, but it's the good looks of actors in a bad movie. Wolcott almost brings himself to acknowledge the sheer imbecility of things before he pulls back and blames the Democratic disarray on -- who else? -- George W. Bush.
. . . .
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
. . . . What was playing was a double-feature: Forbidden Planet and a Simple Plan. The Democratic candidates look as good as ever, but it's the good looks of actors in a bad movie. Wolcott almost brings himself to acknowledge the sheer imbecility of things before he pulls back and blames the Democratic disarray on -- who else? -- George W. Bush.
. . . .
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
So we shouldn't be surprised when Sandy blames Bush for everything . . . . . . in an Obama thread.
Time for the Democrat Party to look in the mirror. The problem isn't Bush, it is the person in the mirror.