Thursday, July 31, 2008

Obama bends over.

I'd like you to take a look at this Democratic party ad. has headlined the story, "McCain desperate, Democrats say" with an exceedingly poor analysis of what this ad actually means. Before we discuss it, click on the embedded ad. Watch it. Or read's summary.

Note that the ad never identifies "the charge" except to say that it's very negative for Obama. Also note that the ad never once even attempts to refute whatever the charge may be. It simply says that it's such a mean thing to say that McCain shouldn't have brought it up. IOW, faced with their inability to refute McCain's "charge" against Obama, the Democrats have resorted to changing the subject.

So there are two concrete conclusions to take home here:
1. There is something really negative to be said about Obama.
2. He doesn't deny it.

The best Obama has been able to do is bend over and let the Democratic party have their way with him by posting this silly, self-damaging ad. It's silly, in that the causes are trivial and not terribly negative; and it's self-damaging, because it brings attention to McCain's statements, which as it turns out, are solidly founded.

Also note that doesn't do anything to remove the uncertainty for the reader by identifying or linking to "the charge" or to the "negative ads" that are claimed. They really don't want to put this in context. This is what you would expect from Obama supporters, as presenting both sides might cause you to see merit in McCain's statement. Better to drag out the stale old "the severity of the charge" tactic that's been used since waay back when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the US Supreme Court. That is, it's not the truth of the charge that matters, it's the severity of the charge. And McCain is being charged with going negative, presumably with baseless accusations born of desperation. Except that nobody is denying what McCain said.

What could it be? Who knows, they won't identify it. But MSNBC reports this as McCain's "first negative ad":

Here's the announcer's script:
ANNOUNCER: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops. Positions that helped him win his nomination. Now Obama is changing to help himself become president. John McCain has always supported our troops and the surge that's working. McCain. Country first.
JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
This aired just prior to Obama's overseas trip, and it was factual. Frankly, if stating the truth is "negative" then the negativity doesn't lie with the ad, but with your candidate.

But here's the latest "negative ad" that's drawing so much Democratic ire:

Here's the script:
ANNOUNCER: He's the biggest celebrity in the world. But, is he ready to lead? With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says no to offshore drilling. And, says he'll raise taxes on electricity.Higher taxes, more foreign oil, that's the real Obama."
JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
All of which are verifiable. Again, if the facts are negative, it's the candidate -- Obama -- not the ad, to blame.

Instead, the Democrats would rather focus on the fleeting glimpses of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in the ad (both of which occur during the words "biggest celebrity in the"). That's it. That's the big controversy. They showed some celebrities when talking about celebrity. How dare they?

What was the "scurrilous statement" Joe Klein ranted about (Joe called it a "McCain Meltdown"). It was this:
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
Well, it does seem that way. And not just to me. Apparently McCain's opinion is shared by a lot of folks. And with good reason. For instance, the troop surge that Obama opposed has worked, but Obama resolutely refuses to say that it has, even though will say that the situation in Iraq has improved, and he clearly knows why. "I will not say the words you're looking for," he told a reporter on FoxNews, though his website has removed the reference to his opposition to the successful surge. Obviously, "inconvenient truths" are there to be buried and forgotten. And the evidence of his responses says that Obama's self-esteem is more important to him than the safety either troops or civilians.

So the McCain tactic is to counter the mainstream media's Obamagasms with reasons why you should temper the hype... reasons that you will not hear from the smitten schoolchildren writing the news. Obama's tactic is to puff up all indignantly and cry "foul!" when anything unflattering about him is said, even though it's true.

If you want to learn more, visit



  1. Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. True enough. You've got to be a chair to do that.

    He hasn't been to Iraq in years. True enough. We've seen how much good CODELs do, haven't we?

    He voted against funding our troops. Not true. He voted to limit funds, because thats the only way to get a Bush's attention.

    You think Obama people don't listen to McCain? Think again.

  2. Anonymous, Obama is the chair. He's the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, to be exact. Check it out yourself: This is a committee that has oversite of NATO.

    Now that THAT excuse is out of the way, to repeat: Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan, or the role of NATO in Afghanistan, or the role of NATO member countries in Afghanistan.

    Re: CODELs. Sure, it would hardly do to go over there with a Congressional delegation as part of his job when he can go himself to hog some limelight and undermine the job of the current and next President (a job for which he still has not been elected, despite the fake seal and his plans to remodel the Lincoln bedroom, and despite the fact that Obama doesn't even realize he still IS a Senator! Click through for the proof.

    Hint. Look for this quote: ""I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator." (News flash to Wile E. Obama, Sooooper genius: You still ARE a US Senator.)

    As for troop funding, HR2206, Vote #00181, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Obama voted Nay.

    You're 0 for 3, "Anonymous". Thanks for playing, and thanks for demonstrating so well how little issues matter to Obama supporters. You don't even know where your candidate stands, but you won't let a little thing like that stop you from defending your rock star.