McCain Campaign Deja Vu? Recycled Hillary Clinton Attack Lines

Last Spring the GOP/Big Media promoted Obama shamelessly over Hillary Clinton. It was when they did this that I decided to change and put my support behind her. My simple logic was then and is now: If they are that afraid of her winning...there must be something fundamentally threatening about what they think she'll do in office. And if she represents "all that is bad" to the GOP, she has, by definition, my vote and full support all the way to the August convention and beyond.

Examining Barack Obama with a microscope hasn't been a vindictive matter for me at least. This isn't about bitterness, it's about logic and about common sense. And as much as I'm raking him over the coals, the GOP are just sharpening their knives. The bloodbath will begin the millisecond his nomination becomes "official". They're reining it in, just in case. And their doing so is telling me that they believe Hillary Clinton is still a viable threat. Good! The GOP/Big Media buttered Obama up in the Spring and kid-gloved him. It was actually nauseating to watch those who usually tear the enemy (democratic candidates) to ribbons handle him so "gently" then....*urp*....excuse me...

Let's think of the Office we voters are hiring an executive for as a high-level security job of the most import. For that is exactly what it is. Let's do a blind application where instead of looking at skin pigment and genitalia, we look at qualifications and backgrounds. After all, anything less would be sexist or racist. We are, in essence, looking at three candidates for this most important job.

My posting the excerpt from the Chicago Tribune article http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-07... about Obama's petty and systematic extermination of four other minority progressive candidates so he could run unopposed for the office he sought in Ilinois is what a prospective employer does. It's called a background check. It tells me that even though he is blatantly chanting and stealing the persona (another red flag) of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a true fighter for minority rights, and chanting that he supports minority issues like no other, in practice he thinks nothing of stomping on the tops of their heads until they are obliterated in the interest of furthering his power. This tells me that when in office minorities should be rightfully very leery of his actual support once he senses pressures from DC to "fall in line or be dethroned" (lameducked). He has shown he will do anything to get ahead to retain or maintain power; and even fellow minorities are fair game...

My daughter has a job handling a lot of money. And compared to the President of The USA, her job is a minimum security situation. Even still, you wouldn't believe the scouring and thorough check they did on her background, her qualifications, who her friends were, her family, our histories...etc etc. etc. At no time did I consider this "an unfair attack". I considered it sensible for the amount of trust they had to put in her position. Again, compared to the amount of trust we need to put in our Commander In Chief, her job was a drop in the bucket.

I say to those critical of people baring Obama to the light: It's time to really look at who you voted for. I know it's embarassing to pick the wrong guy and lots of people would rather go down with the ship with Captain Hook than admit they signed on the wrong boat; but we need to rise above petty fixations and ego-defense and really take as hard a look at Obama as was taken at Clinton. It's only fair. And it's the only proper thing to do.

So to reiterate: Any stalwart Obama supporter who still challenges that I am "attacking" poor Obama, just remember that he is applying for the highest level security job in our nation...and falling short I might add...in a time of extreme conditions and pivotal duress. To say that looking him over more thoroughly is "attacking" is an attempt at wilfull blindness and it is irresponsible.

Please, anyone who begs that Obama's past remain buried..don't start a business and do the hiring for your executive positions. Your stockholders will be bitterly disappointed.

Obama's track record especially with his insidious Chicago election tactics and his 20 year faith-ties to that "minister" who foams at the mouth and promotes racism and anti-American hatred are most troubling REAL AND FACTUAL aspects of his background check. Even more recent and troubling are his quiet acquiescence to sexist comments in Big Media that resulted in his getting ahead in the race against Hillary. It's more of the down and dirty politics like the Chicago race that he apparently has not abandoned. And this gets me thinking about his recent "divorce" from his church and minister. If he says he mended his ways since Chicago and still practices (passive) ruthlessness in campaign tactics, are we to believe he really, authentically and truly abandoned those brainwashed ideals of 20 years all in a fortnight?

I for one am not that easily duped. I suggest that others not be as well. Do your background checks on your candidate. Don't be racist and look only at the color of his skin and how well he imitates a true hero like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Look inside, at the man, the person. See what his MO actually is from past records and evidence rather than listening to the soothing lull of his speeches.

That's what I'm all about. I'm about responsible hiring.

Silhouette,
How about you get your own blog and post your rants there. If you feel it's appropriate and necessary to reference your writings here, then do so with a link and possible excerpt.

So intelligent thinking is now being labelled "ranting"? No. It won't work that way. Your rant against my comment is itself a rant. You are attempting to censure my free speech. Let me guess, you're an Obama supporter?

Just a guess of course...

This site is for lively discourse and irreverent comments. I don't have to worship at the throne of Obama to post here. In fact, dissenting views are healthy. They tend to keep monopolies of thought at a minimum. Would you be in favor of Onethink? Have you read George Orwell's 1984?


And might you be one of those folks at Talkleft who had me banned from commenting for writing the exact type of comments there as here?

Wow, and they say the GOP are fascists... It's funny how extremes on either side tend to think the same: in absolutes...

*shudders*

Silhouette, It is one thing to post disagreement and another to post a manifesto. So, you don't like Obama. Fine. But, to take up so much space spouting nonsense and repeats is ridiculous. Most of us only read about a paragraph or so. It's far too long to read the whole thing. It would take all day to do so and there are better things to read and do then read your tome.

As for repeating the Hillary attacks this is exactly what so many of us thought would happen. She played right into the wingnuts or at least decided to give them enough talking points.
Good thing is that those attacks did her little good as she lost. so, if McShame wants to follow the same strategy and copy Hillary I say good. He'll end up the same way as Hillary. Losing!

The facts are this: rabid and blind Obama supporters risk alienating millions of voters. You cannot COMMAND us to support someone we think is unfit for the job. You cannot THREATEN us to support someone we thinkis unfit for the job. You cannot PUNISH us to make an example out of us to SCARE us into joining "your side"...or else...

You must appeal to our intellect, our common sense and our reasoning. You must explain to us why we should vote for a man who is more ruthless politically against minorities (or anyone he sees as standing in his way) than Hillary Clinton. You must have Obama patently explain where all this shady money is coming from for his campaign? You must have him answer as to why he worshipped at a church where whites were debased regularly and our country was smeared as part of sermons he worshipped at. WORSHIPPED AT.

Your strongarm threats of censure are as alarming as Obama's ruthlessness against his fellow minority progressives in Chicago. My advice to you is that you win more flies with honey than with vinegar, but even then we can see through the sweet stuff to what lies behind it.

So good luck with that. And in the Fall look for MILLIONS of people to be writing in Hillary Clinton in protest of exactly the type of Obamaite tactics you just used here..

You can ignore what I write and that's your perogative. But what I think you're really after is censure. You don't want anyone reading what I'm saying and thinking about it. If it was a matter of just ignoring me you wouldn't respond. But something I'm saying is shaking you to your foundation and your aim is to keep Obama at the top no matter what it takes. And you are like him in that regard.

Why worry about what I'm saying? That proof is that you are...you are...

When the curtains are drawn and we millions are by ourselves casting our ballots this November all alone...it is then you will feel the impact of what I'm saying here.

Reason dictates that during these troubled times we not knowingly cast our vote for either of the two nefarious men running for the Oval Office. I and millions others like me would not be able to sleep during the fallout of such a horrible and fundamental mistake.

I'm hiring the candidate fit for the job. You can do what you like.

If this were my website,
I would ask Sill to pay for the space taken for daily and multiple negaive campaign ads.

At some point, it'sgoing to drive other TMV readers away, IMO.

Yeah, I don't care if you want to bash Obama. Just be more concise. Please.

One of the things I quickly learned in blog posts is to be short, concise and to the point. Usually people only read the first few sentences or the first paragraph, gloss over, and move on. And when confronted with a big page of solid text, it's a big turnoff.

Sil, your arguments would reach more people if you kept your arguments *shorter*. Right now, I would bet that most people are passing over your diatribes for no other reason than they're TOO LONG.

Three in a row begging me to limit or otherwise quit speaking my feelings, my thoughts on Domestic And International News, Analysis, Irreverent Comments, Original Reporting, and Popular Culture Features From ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

Not just the far left, eh Talklefters in support of Obama?

You snuffed my voice over there and it seems you mean to get it done here too.

I told you before, there's no law requiring you to read even one sentence of my posts. There's no law requiring anyone to read one sentence of my posts. What you're after is censure. I know this website can handle the bandwidth of a few extra paragraphs. What I'm saying needs to be said and if someone changes their mind about politics as a result of my freedom of speech and free flow of information in order to make informed choices, then our country has been served well.

If you think my commentary is a little out of balance in favor of Hillary Clinton, consider that 9/10s of the articles published on this moderate website are in favor of Obama. I'm a big fan of balanced coverage. 18 million people can't all be wrong..

FWIW, I think the whole premise of Silhouette's original post is wrong from the start: The only reason the Clinton campaign continued to sputter on past March was because the news media kept throwing fuel onto the smoking ember of her campaign. It was after all, in their own best interest.

That said, I'd just like to add that since the Clinton camp's attacks on Obama worked out so well for her, that I certainly hope McCain keeps on recycling them. I have a feeling that unlike good wine, they won't get any better with age.

Didn't Senator Clinton concede? Or maybe I just imagined all that.

About the original post: surely the McCain folks can find someone who carries a little more weight than Giuliani as an attack proxy? Is he still here?

Also, just a thought: if you self-admittedly get kicked out of one forum for your writing style/content, you may want to consider mixing it up a bit for the new audience.

>>FWIW, I think the whole premise of Silhouette's original post is wrong from the start:<<

Eh, I wouldn't know -- it was so long that I just passed right over it.

>>The only reason the Clinton campaign continued to sputter on past March was because the news media kept throwing fuel onto the smoking ember of her campaign. It was after all, in their own best interest.<<

Yeah, I got that impression as well. My March, it was so obvious that the Clinton campaign was on its deathbed -- it was just a matter of waiting until that final death-rattle occurred (anyone remember the Salon Clinton Deathwatch?). The media also tried its hardest to play up the "Huckabee vs McCain" matchup even when McCain almost had it wrapped up a few months back, although there was far less substance to Huckabee so it never really caught on. One of the things I said was that the Democratic primary season was the "cable news network employment program" - sort of an economic stimulus program to keep thousands of cable news workers employed as long as possible.

>>That said, I'd just like to add that since the Clinton camp's attacks on Obama worked out so well for her, that I certainly hope McCain keeps on recycling them. I have a feeling that unlike good wine, they won't get any better with age.<<

True that. Everyone was so worried that Clinton was paving the road for McCain's attack machine this fall -- yet Clinton's entire kitchen sink of slimy attacks were a failure. I say let McCain borrow from Clinton's playbook - we all see how well it worked for her.

It's hard to tell how much the attacks worked. Roughly, the first third of the primaries were a tie; then Obama killed with 12 in a row; and then the last third were a tie. This may have been purely the accidents of demographics and scheduling. It's also possible that the attacks slowed his momentum some, such as may have been in evidence in South Dakota -- a state which seemed an easy one for Obama considering previous primary results in places like ND, MN, and Iowa.

Also, attacks might be more effective in a general election than in a primary. After all, most Democrats are roughly in support of both the Clinton and Obama policies. However, in a general election, both McCain and Obama need personal appeal to outweigh disagreements over policy with independents and undecideds.