fellow Obama Cultists, has the swiftboating alread begun?

[meow mix]

pretty easy to tell whos on top.. maybe the relentless attacks are a good thing. get it going now.

[Azathoth]

1. The fact that the NY Times and all the other Hillary surrogates are suddenly on the same page

is very telling indeed.

[candice]

2. Apply some critical thought: "We have suffered through one amicable goof for the past seven years"

If it sounds too good to be true, question it just a little. I wasn't taken in by Bu$h but it was another media lovefest.

From:


http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/06/hillarys-tied-hands/

"I am not dedicated to bashing Obama because I am a political sadist bent on torturing and disparaging a deserving, ambitious man. But if he wants to be President he needs to be fully vetted. We have suffered through one amicable goof for the past seven years and cannot afford another mistake.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton cannot take Obama on in the way she should. He’s getting a pass in part because he is a black man with an inspiring story. Of course, when one probes into the details of the story, it starts to fall apart. But since a sizable portion of the Democratic party and the media have bought into the myth, god help anyone who tries to expose the clay feet of this faux deity.

So Hillary has to navigate perilous waters–trying to expose the superficial gloss of Obama’s positions without being accused of sullying the Obama mythology. For example, a terrific speech in 2002 (almost always selectively quoted) becomes the defining position even though Obama declined to stand with Russ Feingold and others who actually made a stand to oppose the war. When Bill Clinton points out, correctly, the disingenuous blarney of Obama’s so-called valiant stand, it is Bill Clinton who becomes the bad guy.

So what is a body to do? It is left to the blogosphere to shine light on the tawdry reality that is Obama. If you have not had the chance, please take time to read the following posted today at FireDogLake. Looseheadprop nails it.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/

"In her NyTimes OpEd endorsing the candidacy of Barack Obama, Caroline Kennedy tells us that rather than basing our decision on a candidates’ stated positions on the issues or on their experience we should focus instead on his character.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

I have long been an admirer of Ms. Kennedy’s and I think she has point. Problem is, Obama has a Tony Rezko problem. Actually a whole bunch of Tony Rezko problems. And a few other problems here and there which do not say very good things about his character or his sense of ethics or his ability to spot the appearance of impropriety. I include on that list the recent revelations about the legislation which he claims to have “passed” relating to leakage of nuclear material into drinking water.""

Continued at this link:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/

[Azathoth]

3. "So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual."

This is exactly why Hillary is losing. There's no point in me elucidating further, because you either see it by now or you probably never will.

[FrenchieCat]

4. So Barack has an advantage cause he's Black?

Kewl!

Wait till I tell everyone!

[GalleryGod]

11. George Miller & Nancy Pelosi would barf at this putrid post.

Nice Cut N' Paste: A good days work: for an 8th grader:puke: :nopity:

[Straight Shooter]

5. What's probably happening is that powerful people are becoming alarmed.

The force of his personality is the primary focus of his campaign. We've had one out-of-control megalomaniac in the White House who really began to believe he was the chosen one, we don't need another, no matter how benign his intentions.

Call it swiftboating if you like. Others just don't like what they see in the man.

[Armstead]

6. Is Hillary really running on the issues more?

I think not. She basically runs on "I'm experienced" whatever that means.

[la la]

7. but--

she IS experienced. Is Obama?

I agree with *Straight Shooter*

I've kept this inside for too long---but I see too much * in Obama---good talker- but................

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. What experience?

She's held exactly ONE elected position. Her time in the senate is the only time in her life that she has been responsible to the electorate.

She did, however, serve as a corporate attorney (not a 'good guy' trial attorney, like Edwards) defending the rights of corporations over the public for 16 years. During that time she sat on the boards of several corporations, including WalMart, despite the obvious possibility of a conflict of interest - but then, of course, there was no conflict of interest because she was serving the corporations in either capacity. During that time she took on a number of short term resume-building projects in health and education.

The one big project she worked on in her husband's administration was the healthcare initiative, which went down in flames because even the republicans thought it was too much of a giveaway to corporate healthcare, and was too absurdly complex to ever be workable - a key part of it was a multi-tiered inclusion of private insurers, much like her current plan.

Is THAT the experience you like?

EDIT: and * a good talker? Have you ever LISTENED to him? The only people I've ever met that thought * is a good talker are his 29%ers.

[krkaufman]

9. shhhh!! n/t

[DemGa]

8. By golly, I believe you've nailed it...nt

[GalleryGod]

12. Let's see Megalomania: The CHICKENHAWK CLINTONS maybe?

By the end of the Pa. Primary Those two Fatties from NY are going to look like Chuck Wepner and Tex Cobb.

For good measure we'll bring TWO WOODEN STAKES:nopity: