I am often accused of posting talking points from John McCain. I usually just laugh it off, given my differences with McCain on so many issues, and the fact that I've never actually gotten any talking points from him.
Now, though, he's got this strange "Spread the Word" thing on his campaign website (click on image at right for a larger screenshot), in which he's encouraging people to post his daily talking points to various blogs.
Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.
Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.
I have no idea why they think this is a good idea, or what the "points" awards are good for. IlliniPundit.com is listed with "conservative" blogs, and I have no idea why we're listed at all and, say, IllinoisReview or McLean County Pundit aren't.
Honestly, I had no idea this existed until CapFax posted about it today, and I do want to echo his warning.
I’ve said this many times before, but now that I’m on some target list it’s worth repeating: Please, don’t post canned DC talking points on this blog.
I hate DC talking points more than just about anything in the world.
If I catch you posting these talking points from McCain’s site, I’ll delete your post and probably put you on the “hold for approval” list. And the same goes for Obama’s stuff. Thanks.
I'm not really into comment moderation or deletion, but if someone is repeatedly copy-and-pasting talking points from McCain or Obama (or anyone else) on here, then that's a pretty shallow corruption of the whole idea of community discussion we're trying to foster on here. Our readers and commenters are the most politcally aware people in this part of Illinois, so if you can't think of something original to say, pasting crap like this isn't going to persuade anyone, so please don't do it.
Thanks.
You were doing much better, now I will have to report you to the handlers.
"You were doing much better, now I will have to report you to the handlers."
Maybe they'll revoke the convention media credentials I had already turned down. :-)
Yah, I saw this a while ago. Not sure why they Illinipundit was highlighted.
*shrug*
Doh! I should pay closer attention to our excellent local blogs.
Sorry, gamera!
That's really weird. fwiw, I don't think most people just cut and paste talking points. I think it is more a process of osmosis through exposure to a select group of media outlets. I spend very little time on liberal blogs because they do nothing to make me think. Yet I often find that the points I try to make are the same ones they are making. Whether it is a case of "
greatmediocre minds think alike" or it is the chip implanted in our brains at the most recent Pinko convention, I cannot say.But to actually come out and encourage cutting and pasting is odd, to say the least.
Say what you will about Obama, the McCain campaign just gets more repulsive to me every day.
"But to actually come out and encourage cutting and pasting is odd, to say the least."
Yes. Can't say as I've seen that before.
"Say what you will about Obama, the McCain campaign just gets more repulsive to me every day."
Both campaigns are pretty repulsive to me, and getting worse quickly.
I keep asking friends and co-workers who are Obama supporters, "Why do you believe in this clown?" The phenomenon really fascinates me, as he is just so transparent and his campaign is so malignant that I wonder how otherwise good people aren't as repulsed by him as I am.
McCain was not born in the US but is considered a US citizen anyway, unlike many who are born in the US that the republican party wants to consider foreign. As a proud third generation employee of the government, McCain is uniquely experienced to be president. His third generation military status uniquely places him to find the best government military solutions for every problem, without the distractions of diplomacy or allowing the free market to work. Like the current president, he entered higher education on a legacy, thus putting him in touch with the problems of the elite he represents. Also like the current president, he has a storied military carreer, flying planes around the world. At one point his plane got shot down and he no longer flew planes, but was kept in a POW camp. He was tortured for some time during the captivity. This experience wad apparently not bad enough to make him unconditionally opposed to torture. He also has a unique perspective on government medical care. As a third generation government employee, he has spent his entire life with free access to the government medical facilities. Although he is 71, and claims to be in good health, he experience has shown him that government medical care is not good enough for the general populous, so is absolutely opposed to it. Some might think a third generation government employee may not be the best president for a country based on free enterprise, but wait. His second wife, whom he married soon after divorcing his first wife, is the chair of one of the largest beer distributors in the country. As such, McCain has experience with the perks of the corporate life, like luxury corporate jets, which he used to ferry himself between campaign stops during his bid to become president. He understands the compromises that must be made when growing a business, like how many alcohol related teen deaths are acceptable to maintain a certain profit margin. As we can see McCain is uniquely qualified to understand the needs of the nation. The military can solve all problems. The health care system that has kept him so healthy is not adequate of capable of doing the same for the masses. American Corporations has special problems and must be given significant leeway in their right to earn a profit.
Can you explain why this is an interesting question? Can you name a politician you "believe" in? I don't have to believe in a man to vote for him.
I'm sick of the mess the Republican party has made of the country and the constitution in the last 7 years. I have no faith in their competence to govern, none at all. I fear for the future of this nation. That's why I will not vote Republican in the upcoming election. I believe I am in good company.
"You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why."
Perhaps the McCain campaign could benefit from the following edit:
"If you know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States, we need you to tell us why."
I will vote for McCain for National Security reasons, He won't raise Tax's including Capitol gains and others; he won't destroy business with more unneeded regulations. He is for drilling and Nuclear power and renewable energy sources. The Supreme Court.
McCain won't rubber stamp an already out of control liberal Congress (which won’t even vote on drilling and has a lower favorable rating then Bush) like Obama will, and he isn't Obama, who voted against the born alive bill this week, I think or was I mistaken again?
I can’t understand conservatives that say they won’t vote for McCain because they don’t like him on a few issues. They will hate Obama and the Democrat congress on so much more. I know they say wait until the American people see how bad things will be and sweep them in to fix it later. How many things have been changed that can’t be reversed now? Things can get worse you know.
@new: Drilling is an issue for you? It's ironic that you parrot this talking point in a response to a post that states "copy-and-pasting talking points [is a] corruption of the whole idea of community discussion." You should educate yourself about the oil companies and oil infrastructure. The oil companies have closed more than half their US refineries in the last 25 years, and they're making obscene record profits. Read this Howell Raines piece from Portfolio.
quick quiz: In what year did oil discovery peak?
“The bottom line for the oil people is, How much can I make while spending the least I can get by with on refineries, synthetic fuels, and for exploration and drilling on the vast, unused acreage in existing oil leases?”
-- Don Bartlett
I have a lot of issues and yes one of them is using all of the available oil the US has to increase supply to lower the price and so we don't have to import as much oil it has been an issue of mine long before this election. Of course you didn't respond to the comments except to question my integrity any thoughts on the issues or proof I am cutting and pasting?
Both campaigns are pretty repulsive to me, and getting worse quickly.
I keep asking friends and co-workers who are Obama supporters, "Why do you believe in this clown?" The phenomenon really fascinates me, as he is just so transparent and his campaign is so malignant that I wonder how otherwise good people aren't as repulsed by him as I am.
I think that people have their horse in the race and we tend to try to see the best in our candidate no matter what. My general sense with Obama is that he is a intelligent, good guy and a powerful speaker and leader but he has been overwhelmed by the general election campaign and the feeding frenzy the media tends to pull whenever something trivial (Paris Hilton) comes up. Here's a guy who is trying to break through and it isn't happening. Being the leader of the free world is incredibly difficult and one of the most difficult parts seems to be communicating with the American people. We saw this with Bush, who has tried to paint Iraq in a "Totalitarianism vs. Democracy" framework and has had little traction on that point.
That said, I am unclear about what you mean by "transparent" or "malignant" when it comes to the Obama campaign. He is using themes like "hope" and "change" because a lot of Americans have felt very hopeless under the Republican governments of the last few years and they are thirsting for a change. I think many Republicans see "hope" as meaning hope for the Obama supporter's personal life. I don't read it that way. There was a time (about November, 2004) when 49.9999% of this country felt completely hopeless having to sit through four more years of the Bush catastrophe. Obama is trying to build on that sentiment and it has worked pretty well so far. I'd guess that someone who was excited about Bush getting four more years would fail to understand that sentiment and where Obama is coming from.
Either way, the day Obama tells his supporters to cut and paste talking points is the day the country will reach a new low in electoral politics. So far, McCain is running a terrible and terribly unethical campaign which (imo) is much worse that Obama's. But again, Barack is my horse.
...ahum...how much do you get paid for that paragraph of shite?
"Can you explain why this is an interesting question? Can you name a politician you "believe" in? I don't have to believe in a man to vote for him."
Because so many of Obama's supporters seem to actually believe in him and believe that he really is different. Read D.Boon's comment directly above this one for an example.
"That said, I am unclear about what you mean by "transparent" or "malignant" when it comes to the Obama campaign."
His campaign is transparently not about hope and/or change, but about power and pandering and interest groups, just like every other national campaign that's ever been run.
And his campaign is malignant with the way it is now openly relying on charges of racism (sometimes preemptively) to refute otherwise legitimate criticism.
More malignance not directly affiliated with Obama's campaign: threatening legal action against donors who are otherwise doing nothing illegal.
Hope, change, change, hope, hope, unity, hope, hope, change, unity.
And his campaign is malignant with the way it is now openly relying on charges of racism (sometimes preemptively) to refute otherwise legitimate criticism.
This is just a poorly worded sentence, right? You aren't really saying that the non-preemptive responses to racism are "refuting otherwise legitimate criticism"?!?
If it's otherwise legitimate, but racist, that seems like a very important thing to address, and part of the reason I don't want McCain running the country, as he's given every indication that he will (not out of malicious or ill-intention, just negligence) allow racism to fester.
His campaign is transparently not about hope and/or change, but about power and pandering and interest groups, just like every other national campaign that's ever been run.
And his campaign is malignant with the way it is now openly relying on charges of racism (sometimes preemptively) to refute otherwise legitimate criticism.
Well, at the risk of being called full of shit again, let me just suggest that his campaign might be about hope and change to the millions of people who support him. The idea that there might be hope for this country again by changing the party in power.
I have no doubt that you would disagree with all of that sentence. You can't hope that the opposition party wins, and you probably aren't interested in much change in the White House beyond getting rid of the GOP albatross that is the Bush administration. So when you hear "hope" and "change" it is going to ring hollow and since your a pretty smart guy your cynicism is going to pop up.
But for those of us who have supported Obama for almost two years now, there is a real hope here that a intelligent, progressive, black man is going to be president. And this is a change I very much welcome and have worked to help happen (as have many of my friends). So, in short, I don't think it is fair to say that the campaign is "not about" hope or change. It is just not about those things for you.
And, frankly, I have no idea what you mean by that last sentence. Feel free to explain with examples if you think it is worth it.
"This is just a poorly worded sentence, right? You aren't really saying that the non-preemptive responses to racism are "refuting otherwise legitimate criticism"?!?"
No - I'm saying that his campaign is now reflexively responding to criticism with charges of racism. Sometimes preemptively so. And doing so in response to legitimate criticisms that have nothing to do with race.
Example: Criticism: Obama has no experience, and no substance, and is relying on celebrity and an adoring media. Response: Those evil Republicans are going to try to scare you because I'm black.
"But for those of us who have supported Obama for almost two years now, there is a real hope here that a intelligent, progressive, black man is going to be president. And this is a change I very much welcome and have worked to help happen (as have many of my friends). So, in short, I don't think it is fair to say that the campaign is "not about" hope or change. It is just not about those things for you."
I understand that your hope and change is for Democratic control of the White House. That level of naked partisanship is not the hope and change message that most people hear when Obama has been campaigning on it.
Example: Criticism: Obama has no experience, and no substance, and is relying on celebrity and an adoring media. Response: Those evil Republicans are going to try to scare you because I'm black.
Personally, I was hoping for example from Obama's own mouth, not one you just made up. The above example is such a dramatic reach that I'm guessing you could'nt really post an real example?
I understand that your hope and change is for Democratic control of the White House. That level of naked partisanship is not the hope and change message that most people hear when Obama has been campaigning on it.
I don't think it is "naked partisanship" (nice, btw) that is in play here. I think it is a battle of ideas and conservative ideas just happen to be really unpopular. The message of hope and change is tied to Democratic policies that a majority of Americans do support. Universal health care, for example, would be a big change and would bring a lot of hope to a lot of people who struggle with illness and medical bills. Curbing greenhouse gases would be a big change and brings hope that maybe we can start to act more responsibly toward the environment. Should I go on?
Your desire to simplify everything into "Obama has no experience and represents no change or hope" is (dare I say it?) hyperbolic. Obama has experience, he does represent significant change in American politics and for many of us he is the best hope of getting this country back on track. He might not have as much experience as you want (a legitimate criticism) or represent change that Republicans want to see, but to just simply write the entire campaign and the support of millions of people off because you're cynical toward Democratic politicians is intellectually dishonest.
Yeah, I'd have to argue the blantant partisenship is showing through here. I can't imagine that you think that bringing up the potential of racism in the way you describe in your made up example is actually worse that people hitting Obama with racist attacks.
You just don't care cause he's not your guy.
To drift back to the opening post (sorry, everyone, I’m not jumping into this current discussion for love nor money!) I think it is very telling that a national campaign is acknowledging the importance of the blogs in this election.
Not too long ago blogs were viewed as the jurisdiction of a few computer nerds and science types, and NOW a Presidential campaign is actively seeking volunteers for that arena.Finally (!) the online community is getting some attention for being the fertile organizing tool that it is. We’ve seen a handful of candidates making use of the online community prior to this (Ron Paul, Howard Dean and Gen Clark to name a few.) but mostly it has not been on too many folks’ radar in prior elections.
I see accusations of paid posters occasionally at other boards. Am I gonna start seeing THAT here at Pundit now? I swear, I think that Hulton guy and that Run4Cover dude are paid disrupters!
:)
Laura
You know me I am confused not paid.
"Personally, I was hoping for example from Obama's own mouth, not one you just made up. The above example is such a dramatic reach that I'm guessing you could'nt really post an real example?"
Well, I wouldn't expect you to see it that way. You've got your horse, and you're absolutely (somehow) convinced he's something special, and so dismiss everything you disagree with as partisanship. It's ironic, really, that you can post that your hope is for a change is partisan control for partisan reasons while decrying partisanship by others.
"I can't imagine that you think that bringing up the potential of racism in the way you describe in your made up example is actually worse that people hitting Obama with racist attacks."
I'm still waiting for an example of McCain hitting him with a racist attack. The Clintons certainly did, and some outside groups, but nothing from McCain's campaign of which I'm aware.
Oh, so now, it only counts if McCain himself calls Obama a n***** on national televison? You said that Obama was responding to "otherwise legitimate criticism" by addressing it as racist. What about all of Fox News' shenanigans? Is he just supposed to take their racist attacks? Do you approve of those?
What about McCain paying Quinn and Associates? What about McCain using racial slurs?
What don't you call that injecting race into the campaign?
Race is in the campaign and in our national discourse. If we insist on blaming people of color everytime it surfaces, you are more than smart enough to see where that goes...
Well, I wouldn't expect you to see it that way. You've got your horse, and you're absolutely (somehow) convinced he's something special, and so dismiss everything you disagree with as partisanship.
Yes, of course, I dismiss everything I disagree with as partisanship. I spend time trying to explain to you why people I know personally (and yes, me too) think Obama represents change and hope. You say he is throwing around the race card but when asked for specific examples you just make something up like,
Like these two things are connected. I don't know what it is about Obama that rubs you the wrong way so dramatically. I really don't. I don't expect you to believe Obama is anything special, or that he represents hope or change. I completely understand that you will never believe that, mainly because you are a Republican who wants another Republican president. But for those of us on the other side of the political divide, Obama represents a lot of change and he gives us a lot of hope. I have tried to explain why but you seem incapable of listening and only capable of responding with absolutes. It is boring.
"What about McCain using racial slurs?"
Is this anything more than McCain referring to his torturers again? You seem hung up on that.
"Yes, of course, I dismiss everything I disagree with as partisanship. "
Go re-read this thread. That's exactly what you've done, at least here in this discussion.
"You say he is throwing around the race card but when asked for specific examples you just make something up like"
It is a real example. Just because you dismiss it because it reflects badly on your personal partisan hope doesn't make it any less real for those of us who aren't completely emotionally invested in Obama.
"I don't know what it is about Obama that rubs you the wrong way so dramatically. I really don't."
He's just another big-government hyper-partisan Democrat who thinks he knows what is best for everyone else. I really don't know why you (or anyone) are so excited about him, as his only career accomplishments are a rather mediocre book about himself and winning a statewide Democratic primary against a very fractured field.
It is a real example. Just because you dismiss it because it reflects badly on your personal partisan hope doesn't make it any less real for those of us who aren't completely emotionally invested in Obama.
No, it's not. It reminds me of this conversation:
xian: I'm voting Obama. I don't like a lot of his positions, but big government liberalism is better than big government neo-conservatism.
IP: I teach my dogs to hate black people.
It would be a damning conversation, but it never happened. It's just me making stuff up to make you look bad. It's nearly Limbaughian, and has no place in thoughtful discussion.
It's nearly Limbaughian, and has no place in thoughtful discussion.
Ok, now you are crossing the line :-)
and, I think the proper term would be "Limbaughesque"
"It's just me making stuff up to make you look bad. It's nearly Limbaughian, and has no place in thoughtful discussion."
Except I'm not making it up. Obama certainly did personally give a speech in which he preemptively accused Republicans of scaring people about Obama because of his skin color. The salient quote:
He's predicting, in the future, that Republicans will use race to scare people about Obama. He did so in response to criticisms about his lack of experience and his media celebrity.
Now, Obama supporters will come on here and again tell me what he really meant - it's becoming a habitual exercise of necessity every time he says something inflammatory - but I'm certainly not making it up.
I'm not going to tell you what Obama really meant, because he said what he meant, and it was true. Some Republicans (and some Democrats) have already done all of these things, and no doubt there will be more in both party who continue to do so in the future.
Whether it was the actual GOP party in Tennessee or North Carolina, or church groups across the country, or just individuals passing on what they have received and heard, these tactics have already been used. I've received some of the emails myself.
I am still hopeful that the McCain campaign itself will not stoop to this level, but that does not excuse those who already have and those who undoubtedly will.
Where your comments are most objectionable is when you portray Obama's comments as some sort of direct response to a legitimate attack by McCain. That's not the context, and it was not in any way part of a continuous connected dialogue. It's a stump speech, the elements of which Obama has used off and on repeatedly for some time, in response to the crap that has come from a variety of quarters, but not as part of any directed response to specific, recent actions of the McCain campaign.
Thankfully, so far the McCain campaign has not used any racial attacks. They just attack Obama for being too popular, and speaking too well, and being so gosh darn smart. Like those are bad things. How dare he? ;-)
Where your comments are most objectionable is when you portray Obama's comments as some sort of direct response to a legitimate attack by McCain. That's not the context, and it was not in any way part of a continuous connected dialogue.
Cosign. How is:
An example of this:
??? Perhaps you're the one who needs to come on here and tell us what you really mean.
It's amazing, isn't it, what you hear through a pro-Obama filter?
When Obama was talking about how Republicans were going to scare people because he didn't look like other presidents, he must have been talking about his larger-than-average ears. My mistake, and I apologize.
"When Obama was talking about how Republicans were going to scare people because he didn't look like other presidents, he must have been talking about his larger-than-average ears."
Right, let's at least be honest about this. Obama's careful phrasing had one purpose -- to bait the McCain camp into objecting to the claim that they had introduced racism into the campaign, without literally introducing the issue himself. Then the door would be open for the Obama camp to infer that the McCain side was so hyper-focused on race as to assume incorrectly that a charge of racism had been lodged. Or some such tactic.
I'm an Obama supporter, but my support does not rely on him being The One. He's a presidential candidate, so he constantly faces choices about how far he can slide toward pragmatism and away from idealism. See the Rolling Stone article "Candidates for Sale" for another example: Even though Obama gets far more private contributions under $200 than McCain, that doesn't mean he isn't also in bed with large corporate donors, people who want things.
I favor both Obama's platform and personality over McCain's, and when we vote we will choose one over the other. One, not The One.
He's predicting, in the future, that Republicans will use race to scare people about Obama. He did so in response to criticisms about his lack of experience and his media celebrity.
Now, Obama supporters will come on here and again tell me what he really meant - it's becoming a habitual exercise of necessity every time he says something inflammatory - but I'm certainly not making it up.
Right. That's not the same as saying that McCain will do it. Now, the key question, "Was that a crazy accusation to make?"
Well, considering that Republicans not McCain like the Fox News staff, or the crazies on this and a hundred other such blogs or the talk radio people have been documented using his race or ethnicity against him over and over again, it seems like a pretty logical charge.
What's illogical is for you to dismiss it simply because you don't like Obama.
"What's illogical is for you to dismiss it simply because you don't like Obama."
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm criticizing Obama's accusations of racism to delegitimize all of his critics broadly, when only a few deserve it. And I'm criticizing him for doing it in direct response to legitimate criticisms of his lack of experience and the media sycophancy of his campaign, which most certainly aren't racist attacks.
But he didn't accuse. He just told people what he thought was going to happen, and in all likelihood, he's absolutely right. Maybe it's a misdirection, or ducks the main issue. But who doesn't do that when they give speeches or answer questions. Haven't you ever interviewed for a job? Do you lead with all of your weaknesses? Do you say, "Actually I suck at that!"
If you want to argue that the response doesn't adequately respond to the question, I agree with you entirely. If you think the question is a fatal one--he simply doesn't have enough experience, I disagree, but respect your position. I can't see how you demonize the hell out of him by making this out to be different from any other political misdirection. Bush hasn't answered a straight question in a decade, and McCain does this all the time when it comes to a topic he doesn't know anything about.
If the issue is that he used race as misdirection, that's a shame. Obviously as someone who happens to be of minority descent and happens to be racially attacked on a daily basis by your party's news service, he's going to respond to that. If the country refuses to allow him to respond to such disgusting tactics, then we can pretty much guarantee no non white presidents for the next century too.
Well, again, differing perspectives. To you, it's OK that he describes all his critics as racist because a handful of them are - just another political redirection from this self-described paragon of new politics. To me, that's not OK, and is just one more reason he's unfit to be President.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
IP, you've lost the plot. Take a breath and start over.
accusations of racism to delegitimize all of his critics broadly
he describes all his critics as racist
He did no such thing, IP. He said that there will be racists among his critics. Do you deny that there are racists among his critics, IP? The part where he calls *all* his critics racist -- that just wasn't there, IP.
But go ahead and prove me wrong. Please point me to anything Obama has said that says *all* of his critics are racist.
Already did:
Or am I supposed to infer, again at the urging of Obama supporters/translators, that what he meant was that only some of his critics are racist. I do appreciate the irony of being told for months that I need to be sophisticated and infer Obama's meaning as different from what he actually said, and now I'm being told that unless he literally says "all my critics are racist" that it's impossible to infer it from "they are going to use my different appearance to scare you."
Earlier, D.Boon argued that it had nothing to do with race at all.
And xian says that it clearly has to do with race, and that it paints broadly, but that it's justified because Obama is facing a phalanx of racist Republicans, and it's no worse than anything imprecise that any other candidate has said.
Which translation to believe?
By the way, this discussion now come full circle back to accusations of me making things up. Wahoo!
I have been following this thread. So with trepedation, I am posting the following neither in support or non support of Obama. Based on my reading, it appears to me that Obama is the person who introduced racism strategically through his books. He describes himself as black not as white or both, which he actually is. And what troubles me most about all of this, according to the Chicago article, he wrote these books on company time.
Pattsi Petrie
Or am I supposed to infer, again at the urging of Obama supporters/translators, that what he meant was that only some of his critics are racist. I do appreciate the irony of being told for months that I need to be sophisticated and infer Obama's meaning as different from what he actually said, and now I'm being told that unless he literally says "all my critics are racist" that it's impossible to infer it from "they are going to use my different appearance to scare you."
Seriously, IP, you've jumped the shark on this one. Are you taking your cues from AnF here? I noticed you're not saying "all of his critics are McCarthy-style jingoists" because he said "they're going to tell you I'm not patriotic enough". Why is that? Why are you skipping over that and not making the same correlation there, or do you also believe that he is making that accusation about each and every criticism made? If not, why are you only able to use deductive reasoning for that sentence but lose that skill when it comes to the next two? Time to regroup, gather your thoughts, and then come back to this thread with a clearer head and a little less "witch-hunt for racism" charges on the brain.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Earlier, D.Boon argued that it had nothing to do with race at all.
I said no such thing. Now you are putting words into my mouth. You said that Obama has responded to legitimate criticism by using the race card - calling Republicans racist. In my mind, that implies an exchange in which Republicans have criticized Barack on a legitimate issue and his response to that direct criticism has been to call Republicans racist. This is not what you have posted. This is not what has happened. Instead, you have a quote from a speech in which Obama clearly lays out how the Republicans will go after him, and "oh, btw, he's black" is definitely one aspect of what they will do. Will McCain do it? I hope not. Will IP do it? I really hope not. But there is a subsection of the GOP that will be playing that race fear card like a fiddle, and I think we all know that is true.
You have been defensive about race in your party for years, and you continue to suffer from ODS, the Obama Derangement Syndrome. This is just another example of what happens when we fail to get help with our issues. Is there an 800 number I can call to make a donation to help find a cure for ODS? Please, I don't want to see you suffer any longer.
Post new comment