This is getting wierd.
Do I believe that Obama was making a remark about Sarah Palin with the whole “Lipstick” thing? No. I don’t. BUT. It makes me uncomfortable when dudes like Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews come to Obama’s rescue and cry foul when the “sexism card” is being played. I think they’re using the opportunity to lambast the whole idea of “sexism” as opposed to being offended by Obama being called a sexist. Does that make sense?
Both O’Reilly and Matthews have had to defend themselves against charges of sexism. Matthews had to apologize on the air over a remark about Hillary. O’Reilly settled out of court from charges of sexual harassment. The Falafel thing.
So now is the perfect opportunity for these two assholes, not to defend Obama, but to defend themselves, and in their own overblown megalomaniacal minds, mankind itself, against the “Femi-Nazi’s” that are conspiring to emancipate the last of the real men, which Matthews and O’Reilly feel they are the leaders of.
Obama doesn’t need defenders from the likes of Chris Matthews and Bill O’Reilly.
It’s Not A Lie If You Believe It’s True
– George Costanza–
Obama talks about the audacity of Hope. He might want to start thinking about the audacity of Karl Rove. The current attack ad by McCain saying that Obama supports sex education for kindergarten kids is the latest in GOP tactical smear. Neither Obama or the left should be surprised by these smears.
This current attack reminds me of a frightening scene in Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” where “The Judge” tells a group of church goers that the priest preaching to them is a wanted man… wanted for pedophilia, among other heinous crimes.
The religious crowd turns into a mob. The priest’s protests and claims of innocence do him no good, and he’s catered off by the mob to whatever horrible fate awaits him. When a man asks “The Judge” where he knew the priest from, “The Judge” confesses that he’d never seen the man before in his life, and had no idea who he was
How can we fight the likes of “The Judge” and the likes of Karl Rove? It’s difficult, because when “The Judge” points his finger at you and says you are a child molester, the mob will turn on you, even if they know the claim is untrue, less “The Judge” (Rove) decides to point his finger at them next. Better you than them.
Obama has begun to insert the name Rove into some of his statements now in an attempt to expose the lies. But it is not enough. Constantly being on the defensive against “The Judge” and the mob will not do Obama any good. “The Judge” could not be defeated because he was not really a human being. But Rove is, and so is John McCain. They can be defeated, if you hit them first, and fight fire with fire.
John McCain has hired the same man to run his campaign that tried to destroy him and his family in 2000. (and he did). If McCain had any integrity he has completely abandoned it in the pursuit of power.
Obama has to hit back, and hit back hard. When John Kerry was smeared by the Swiftboaters, his reaction was to not hit back. Why? Because the accusation that he lied about his military service was outrageous. No sensible voter would believe such crap. But voters judge a candidate, not only on how he takes a punch, but how he counter attacks. They wonder if he’s capable of throwing a punch himself, even a sucker punch. If there is no attack, then a voter wonders if the candidate has any fight in them.
John McCain and Karl Rove, just like “The Judge” did to the priest in “Blood Meridian” has called Barack Obama a pedophile. As outrageous as the accusation is, it’s Obama that will have to answer for it, just like John Kerry did in ’04, and all because they couldn’t believe their opponent had the audacity to say such blatant lies.
What sensible voter would believe such a thing?
But Democrats should get over the notion now that the truth matters to the GOP. All that matters to the GOP is selling a product long enough to get to mid-October before the truth seeps in, to take advantage of early voting. All Obama can do is point this out, focus on the issues and tell the media what is really going on here, and then rely on his later voters and GOTV to offset what the GOP is doing here
Has Barack Obama teamed up with Rupert Murdoch?
The New York Times has reported that Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, will make his first appearance on conservative, Bill O’Reilly’s, “The O’Reilly Factor” this Thursday.
When I saw that, I recalled a headline on Huffington about a secret meeting between Obama and Murdoch.
Just before the New York Democratic primary, when I [Michael Wolff] found myself undecided between Clinton and Obama, I said to Murdoch (a little flirtation, like a little gossip, softens him), “Rupert, I don’t know who to vote for—so I’m going to give you my vote. You choose.”
He [Murdoch} paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: “Obama—he’ll sell more papers.”
Obama, on the other hand, was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out (Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.
It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria.
Then, after he said his piece, Murdoch switched places and let his special guest, Roger Ailes, sit knee to knee with Obama.
Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome—just short of a terrorist.
Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.
A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.
If I’m Obama there’s now way I trust Murdoch and Ailes and go on O’Reilly’s show, even if promises are made to use kid gloves. No Way. And Turbocratic makes a good point:
This could cause potential problems for Obama if he commits some sort of gaffe, that takes the focus off of Palin and McCain, and shifts it back to him.
Things are going real shitty for the GOP. Why ruin it?
AmericaBlog and their friend Rob talk polls and the “Hillary problem”.
Rob is on the beach somewhere, just emailed me his take on the new poll showing 27% of Hillary supporters saying they’ll vote for McCain.
At some point, if you don’t reach out to people sufficiently, and in an ongoing manner, you run the risk of them turning on you. Doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening here, but it could be.
I suspect that Obama’s people are banking on the hope that as it becomes obvious that there are bigger issues, particularly the Supreme Court, those voters will come home and vote for the Democratic ticket.
Or does Obama expect to win without Hillary voters? There sure were a hell of a lot of them after the primary. If Obama loses, then he’ll have to concede that he lost because he did not court Hillary voters enough. If he wins, then it will probably be in spite of these voters, and as a result of his so called “ground game”. This convention is Obama’s shot at convincing Clintonites that he’s the best choice, that this country can’t afford another four years of George W. Bush.
27%? Ouch! That’s gotta hurt.