US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Just to make sure I got you right: Interesting logic. Someone comes along and accuses Khalidi of something outrageous and then it is up to Khalidi to prove his innocence and integrity? You are joking, right?

The entire Khalidi thing reeks of 'terrorist ties' by a name other than Ayers, not to mention that 'Obama is a secret Muslim' nonsense. It is a very unsubtle scarecrow smear to make sure the 'I-love-Israel' Armageddonites turn out to vote, and vote for the other guy, and to scare Democrat leaning Jews away from voting for Obama. It isn't exactly rocket science to figure that out.

That's just the same strategy as with Obama's birth certificate. Some nutter surrogate comes along and accuses Obama of nothing less than forging it, and then demands Obama to disproof this outrageous, outlandish claim. After all, it isn't all that much to ask for, right? It's just reasonable, after all it's democracy and the rule of law that's at stake! Indeed! And when will Obama eventually prove to us that he is not molesting children?

​

 

You are close to understanding, but I believe your disdain keeps getting in the way. Don't ask me, ask the LA Times why they reported on an event that may or may not have had Obama honoring a PLO advisor. They are the ones who said they have a tape and they are the ones who have decided to not release it. Why is that? I sincerely hope it is a nothing, but how are we to know as the "media" that is supposed to keep us informed will not give us the information we need to know. As a Jew and to many Jews this is a troubling development. Obama is in serious danger of losing the Jewish vote which has been almost as automatic for the Democrats as the Black vote has been. Israel has noticed that its enemies are supporting Obama and therefore has come out in favor of McCain. I may have to go to temple tonight (Shabbat) just to hear the rabbi's sermon.

The same is true with the entire birth certificate issue. I agree that it is in all probability a craziness. Chandos posted some stuff that seems to agree that it is all nonsense, but maybe you noticed that none of it came from Obama himself. It has all come from other people. How hard would it be for his campaign to release an "official" birth certificate and put all of this to bed forever. Until he does, there will be "nutters" who will have serious concerns.

Could you please post a link as to where Obama is molesting children? I have all sorts of people that I need to forward that to.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 27 seconds later... ----------

For the record, this was not a cut and paste job. It was all crafted by myself. Anyone who has every seen a post of mine knows that when I copy and paste I always supply the link and put the text in either quotes or as a spoiler. Sorry to disappoint.

 

I am not a fan of most Democrats, or their policies. However, . . .

I just don't buy a lot of the stuff they say about Obama. I've dealt with and worked with a lot of folks I didn't like or agree with -- doesn't make me like them. And if there were any real merit to the birth thing, it would have been dealth with long ago. Much as I hate to say it, I simply think that Reps are fear mongering. But they're not the only ones.

The one that gets me is the assrtion made by some (certainly not the Obama campaign itself) that a vote against Obama means the person so voting is automatically a racist. Now certainly many people who vote against him ARE racists - -I've made that point myself several times in the past -- but it IS possible for people to vote against the guy on other bases (that is the plural of "basis", right?) than race.

I also don't believe that the campaign techniques used by the Reps are putting Obama in danger. Sure, they're dirty pool and I don't think they're moral, but they are not a call to assassination.

 

Just because you can't be bothered to look doesn't mean that he hasn't. Let's take this one by one:

He did. This argument has also been debunked - several times - in this very thread. Apparently you weren't paying attention.

Obama made well known his disagreement with Wright's offending sermons, ultimately severing his ties with him. The sound-bites from those sermons were undoubtedly radical, but they were not nearly as radical as the detractors would like you to believe, which you can see for yourself if you watch them in context. That said, Wright gave over 1800 sermons during his 36 year tenure. To suggest that accurate conclusions about 1,800 sermons can be drawn from two or three minutes of out of context sound bites is patently absurd. As an adult, let alone a reasonably well educated adult, you should understand this.

The Ayers "connection" has also been debunked here and here and here and here.

He was no spokesman. He wasn't even a member of the PLO. It is true that he represented the PLO in a peace talk with Israel, and if you want to fault him for it for representing the PLO in a peace talk, knock yourself out. That said, would you release an innocuous video that was going to be used to by a desperate campaign to launch a baseless and utterly dishonest attack ad?

I listed about 10 very substantial legislative accomplishments earlier in this thread. Apparently, you just skimmed them.

Actually, it's a blatant attempt to get ACORN to avoid wasting their time contacting people who have maxed out their donations. Aside from the fact that these people can't donate any more to the campaign, they also will definitely vote for Obama.

I've donated several times - by credit card - to the Obama campaign; and this isn't true. There are quite a few more safeguards than that. While they don't require the three digit code on the back of the card (which is not required by law), they do require the names and addresses to match up. Feel free to donate yourself, if you don't believe me.

McCain had to accept public financing, because he had already done so during the primary. No one was surprised when Obama decided he wasn't interested hamstringing himself in such a manner. Fault him for this if you want, but personally, I couldn't care less.

 

Drew , they have already admitted that the name of the person does not have to match the card used as they have 2(count them 2) employees verifing the credit card donations BY HAND.
What a crock.
Lets see $150 million raised last month with the average donation supposedly $86(their own figure) = 1,785,714 seperate donations. that means each of the 2 employees has to check 29,762 donations a day 7 days a week. If they work 10 hours a day they have to check 2,976 per hour or 1 every 1.2 SECONDS. Not bloody likely.

Checked your favorite site, factcheck.org & they have nothing to say about the credit card scandal being false, so prove it is.

 

That's perfectly legal, Martaug. The McCain campaign doesn't require the name on the card to match, either. Go ahead and donate to the McCain campaign if you don't believe me.

That said, martaug, by hand doesn't exactly mean what you seem to think it means. They use a computer program to process their internet donations. These people aren't hand processing each and every donation. They have computer programs that check the donations against the appropriate databases for them just like the McCain campaign -- and pretty much every single campaign that's been run since the advent of the information age. The only entries they'd be checking manually would be the ones that don't match up for some reason.

We have yet to see any evidence that Obama isn't complying with fully with federal election law, including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements, so I don't need to disprove your accusations. Proving an accusation is the burden of the accuser, not of the accused.

 

LKD,

LKD, respectfully, this is a straw man. This "some" is a negligible group, and I think you know that. No one serious is suggesting that voting against Obama is racist, unless the person in question has stated that the reason they won't vote for him is because he is black (or they mistakenly think he's a Muslim). I honestly think the majority of people voting against Obama are doing so primarily because of Party ID, tax worries, abortion, or the experience issue (or a combination). All perfectly acceptable and rational reasons.

I see what you're saying, but it misses the bigger picture. Beyond just merely being the first black president - a danger in and of itself, given our nation's civil rights history - the McCain people (and the right in general) have been disseminating personal attacks on Obama's character that plant the seeds of mistrust in those receptive to such arguments that go far beyond the typical "you can't trust candidate X" arguments that get trotted out every election.

Think about it: He pals around with terrorists. He's secretly a muslim Manchurian candidate. He's not really a US citizen. He attended a Madrassa as a boy. He was raised in Indonesia. Hamas endorsed him. He funded sex education for toddlers. He's a Marxist socialist. He knows a guy named "Khalidi." He'll coddle leaders of terrorist countries without preconditions. He's not a real American.

All of these ideas on their own can be easily dismissed by rational people. But repeat these messages over and over and over to people predisposed to irrationally fear such things, coupled with fact that their predisposition to such ideas makes them unlikely to verify the truth of such accusations, creates a distinct message of fear and danger in Obama. He's not one of us, he's one of THEM. I remember 911, he'll just let the terrorists right in to do it again. My God, they''re electing a terrorist, can't they see that?! If the government won't stop him, I will. All it takes is one paranoid fool with a sniper rifle (which are not illegal here) and a Secret Service agent making a mistake...I don't want to even think about it.

Bottom line, this is an enormously irresponsible and unethical game the Republicans are playing here. And they know it. And it isn't even gaining them any new votes, it's just creating a lynch mob. And again, they know it. But that's how badly they want to win.

 

Well, isn't it interesting how, regardless of how "liberal" the mainstream media is, the dirtier accusations tend to come from team McCain? That it's always how Obama's the one who gets those connections to radicals, or terrorists, and the like?

Some of you may disagree, but I think that despite McCain's accusations of media bias against him, he has not found too much mud being flung in his direction, either by the Obama campaign or the media. Despite all the talk of liberal media, the media is passive at best when "dirt" on McCain is involved, and Obama's campaign has seemed content to play on the defensive. Despite the accusations that the press is "kowtowing" to Obama, the accusations against Obama are at least often mentioned; possible accusations against McCain do not seem to be. The Keating 5 is barely mentioned, and anything else about McCain only comes to light as his campaign presses Obama and the respective sides and their respective auxiliaries man the barricades - and it doesn't go mainstream. Some time after the Ayers story, the part about McCain meeting Pinochet in the 80's appeared. It was taken by neither the Obama campaign nor the media. McCain went on and on and on about Obama meeting domestic terrorists or dictators, and did his little visit to Chile get any attention? Nah. I guess Pinochet is much, much nicer than, say, Bashar al-Asad (the president of Syria, btw). Oh, and McCain probably had "preconditions" - maybe what would be on the menu?

Then it gets even better. A little after the Obama-Khalidi connection became touted, again by high-ranking personnel in the McCain campaign (Sarah Palin), blogs and other internet sources mentioned connection between McCain and Khalidi, and a pretty nice connection at that: McCain sat on the board of the IRI, which in the 90's funded (courtesy of the US taxpayer, I believe) an organization Khalidi was connected to. That, as well, has so far been taken up neither by the Obama campaign nor the major news media - even though the IRI itself admitted it on its web site . Heck, given the IRI's focus on the Middle East and, chances are it has given money that ended in much darker hands than Khalidi's - and McCain has overseen it. Where are the media pundits to pounce on McCain funding PLO members and their organizations? To dig up who else McCain handed out money to? I doubt it would make even Olbermann's show. Ok, I under (over?)estimated Olbermann. Yet who among those rabid liberals would bother getting their fluffy paws dirty by digging into it?

Yet we hear about Obama's "dangerous" contacts - intellectuals with radical leanings but few actions (in the past) and by now established academicians - and nothing about McCain. So yes, considering how no one talks about some of the less upstanding people McCain met with, talked to, worked with, etc etc, it's not suprising that we'd mostly hear about Obama's chequered past. Yet it may not be because only Obama has skeletons in the closet - perhaps the press, and the Democrats, are simply unwilling to search too deeply into McCain's. This, by the way, is one of my major reasons for prefering Obama. It either shows taste and ethics or understaing that to attack an enemy too harshly damages your chances of working with him - and Obama appears genuinely interested in working with Republicans. In a politician, I respect either - or both.

 

The point about it is that it is a suggestive question.

 

That type of campaigning is effective in some regions, particularly in the West and South. I think it's targeted at conservatives who are unhappy with the Republican Party and are considering Obama because he is far less partisan than most politicians we have seen in recent years. Obama is brilliant in that he knows that IF he wins he will have to govern with the people he is running against; McSmear is busy making enemies with all the people he will need to craft a majority rule after the election is over. There's no way he can win the popular vote, which takes us back again to the last 8 years of division.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27464980/

If Obama wins he will need a majority to govern. The guy is smart enough to know that. On the other hand, there's Mac and Barbie....

A lot of us, who before all this, would have been willing to consider a McCain agenda, but now are completley turned off by the dishonest and sleazy campaign he is running. I, for one, intend to oppose almost everything he is going to craft, including his desire to raise my taxes, by taxing my healthcare benefits. Mac can consider me, and lots of others, I'm sure, the solid oppostition. The one thing Obama has done, is build a huge grassroots network of supporters. That network won't dissolve after the election. I'm sure we will use that grassroots network to press an Obama agenda in Congress (and there will be more Dems to pass that agenda), even if Mac does become McBush.

 

Chandos if you don't think your taxes would go up under obama you are friggin' delusional.
Drew, the obama campaign has deliberately turned off the AVS system that EVERY legitimate site uses. Even the clinton campaign used the AVS system(which mccain does use) only the obama campaign has turned it off.


On a lighter note, just saw on G4 that there is a D'load for mercenaries 2 that allows you to play as Sarah Palin or Barack Obama. Thats just freakin hilarious.

 

Well, DR, I'll just have to write this off to agreeing to disagree, because I don't think the Republican attacks on Obama are that much further afield than ones that have been made in past campaigns. That's actually sayiong something pretty horrible, when you think about it, because it means the level of intellectual discourse in the West has sunk pretty low, and it's been in the toilet for some time.

That said, if some KKK wannabe DOES take a shot at Obama, I will place the blame squarely on said wannabe, not on the McCain slime machine. And I'd advocate the harshest possible penalties for the wannabe, too.

 

Since I don't think you can produce any past top-level campaign rhetoric that even compares to the inflammatory filth we've seen this time around, we will surely have to agree to disagree. And I say this as a very harsh critic of the Swiftboater horsesh*t from 4 years ago.

EDIT:

For all - an instructional mashup of the campaign McCain has run, and the standards he set for himself in terms of respectful discourse. It really is remarkable.

 

To everyone criticizing the McCain campaign's approach, be honest. Obama's spent more on just negative campaigning (painting McCain as Bush, as infirm, mentally addled, threatening to take away SS and Medicare, painting Palin as a right wing nut job who wants to nuke France or something, as a bad parent, as an idiot, as a bad woman, as anything they can think of) than McCain has spent on all his campaigning combined. The reason they aren't bringing up McCain's questionable associations is because he's been around so long they're all old news. They tried it with Mr. Keating, and then everyone realized that was decades ago and the situation had radically changed.

Obama as a muslim is mudslinging, yes, but Obama as friend of Ayers and Khalidi passes a first whiff check, which puts it into circulation in any campaign. Obama as a Marxist, or at least supporter of them, is supported by his own book (where he claims he liked to hang out more with the Marxist professors).

As for the media bias, look at it this way. Joe what's-his-name got Obama to say something embarasing in an unscripted moment. Within 24 hours 'unidentified individuals' had illegally used government computers to check every bit of background data available and the media went on a feeding frenzy attacking him. Which is more news worthy, that a random guy named Joe wasn't 100% forthcoming in his question (which would have worked 100% as a hypothetical), or a candidate running for President of the US saying he thought everyone did better when you 'spread the wealth around'? Which is more news worthy, that a random guy that asked a question is back on his taxes, or that Biden, Obama's own VP choice, has been an almost unstoppable gaffe machine? That's media bias.

 

Khalidi in the Nation

The man is clearly a raging anti-Semite.

If you're a hyperpartisan Republican, that is.

 

If that where as much as he had ever been involved with it, I would have nothing worse to accuse him of than glazing over about 3000 years of history by blaming it on the 'west'.

 

Of more concern, I think, is what sort of scarf he was wearing at the conference

 

Now Obama is being petty in my opinion. I saw on the news that Obama has kicked three reporters off of his "campaign airplane" as the newspapers they work for have come out and endorsed McCain. I believe it was the Washington Times, New York Post, and I don't recall the third newspaper.

 

I think my irony meter just broke.

 

If you thought it was broke before check this out : http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
Media bias, yes it exists but not where you may think, overall the prees coverage is heavily favored towards obama. 57% of mccain coverage is negative VS 29% of obama coverage. It is even worse for cable, just look at MSNBC: 73% of mccain coverage was negative VS. 14% of obama coverage being negative.

Now the funny part, Fox News was 40% negative for BOTH candidates!! & slightly more favorable towards obama(25% VS 22%)!!
How is it possible that "the-everybody-knows-they-are-the-republicans-lapdog" news organization is the most(yes i'm a gonna say it!!) FAIR & BALANCED of the cable news organizations.
Maybe the dems will have to rethink their thoughts about fox news