Today's Seattle P-I editorial encapsulates the general mood of the pro-Obama left in the wake of the ABC debate, with an eye toward November. The gist is: please talk about the issues we care about. Other topics are beneath us, Thomas Frank says so.
If it were that simple we would have the Presidential records of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry to discuss and debate. Which begs the question, when is the Democratic intelligentsia and its MSM sympathizers going to reject Frank's flawed thesis? Just because it makes such believers feel comfortable, ensconced in their islands of urban liberalism, doesn't mean it is actually correct.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 22, 2008 07:21 AM | Email ThisIt will be an interesting match-up to say the least comparing their thin-skinned candidate against McCain who either seems unflappable or on the verge of going off-the-handle.
Posted by: Tracy on April 22, 2008 08:39 AM''please talk about the issues we care about.''
The moonbat community is totally perplexed and irritated about Obama (finally) being taken to task by some in the MSM; after the collective weight of bittergate, Reverend Wright, and his long-time association with unrepentant terrorist bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reached critical mass (throw ''william ayeres'' and ''obama'' at google, and you get over 60,000 hits). After all, those details fit very well and comfortably in the PC moonbat universe; i.e.: Why should anyone be at all upset about those ''normal'' statements and friendships ??
Obama attempts to deflect criticism by saying that it's not fair to in any way associate him with the ''despicable'' acts by Ayers and his fellow domestic terrorists in the distant past when he was 8 years old, just because he and Ayers are casual aquaintences and occasionally run into each other. I have 3 responses to that attempted deflection:
1. It isn't Obama's association with the ACTS that is at issue here: It is his willing, long-term, and repeated association with not just terrorist sympathisers, but with actual and totally unrepentent domestic terrorist PERPETRATORS.
2. If you serve on a board with somebody and hold a local campaign event in that somebody's living room, trying to claim that you just happen to run into them once in awhile is more than a bit of a stretch.
3. Finally consider this: Obama essentially continues to maintain that even though he considers past unapologized-for terrorist acts by William Ayers to be ''despiciable'', it was and is O.K. and just fine to continue to associate with Ayers. If you carry that line of reasoning to its logical and ultimate conclusion, could you not pretty much just as well say that while you totally disagree with the terrorist goals and actions of al-Qaeda, having dinner with Osama bin Laden should not be a big deal.... Think about that for a bit, and recognize that for the vast majority of Americans outside the urban-core strongholds of moonbat lefitsm, this is a HUGE problem for Obama, and it WILL have legs.
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 22, 2008 09:02 AM1. It isn't Obama's association with the ACTS that is at issue here: It is his willing, long-term, and repeated association with not just terrorist sympathisers, but with actual and totally unrepentent domestic terrorist PERPETRATORS.
If these are the kinds of issues the Republicans care about, then John McCain can just quit now. Because 60% of the nation right now is so fed up with people who think like this that they will vote for ANYONE who stands opposed to it.
And you know this. I know you know this. I'm going to keep asking you this until November. What motivates you to humiliate yourself like this?
Posted by: thehim on April 22, 2008 09:25 AMI totally rest my case (and so can Eric, IMO).
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 22, 2008 09:51 AMJohn Kerry "won" all three debates according to the news media.
But you know what -- to me the most telling moment was when Kerry was given a chance to clearly delineate a stand on an aspect of foreign policy. The questioner even said something about "not flip flopping".
Kerry launced into his spiel about "General Nowicki" and then, in the middle of it, he contorted his body from left to right, and began with "on the other hand". I laughed out loud! It was like a watching a bi-polar person from behind a one-way mirror.
But the best part was after Kerry was finished, Bush looked at him perplexed and asked "Did anyone here understand what he just said?"
It was more classic than the "you're no John Kennedy" line.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 22, 2008 11:01 AMAnd everybody you know voted for McGovern, right?
Snicker.
You don't know half as much as you think you do.
Posted by: jimg on April 22, 2008 11:07 AMMcCain is starting to remind me of some other Vietnam era Presidential candidate who married into money. =P
@6
McGovern? I was born in 1975, Einstein. The most important thing to understand about the election of 2008 is that 1968 was 40 years ago. This knowledge will help you understand why most of the country is fed up with people like you right now.
It makes me wonder if the left-wing hacks will begin asking if McCain ever gave up any classified information to the North Vietnamese. Hey... it's just a question... someone's got to ask it. Right?
Posted by: Splinter on April 22, 2008 12:38 PMCan anyone ever remember the PI giving "campaign advice" to a REPUBLICAN?
As I remember it this is hardly the first time I've read this editorial from the PI.
The PI Ed Board wishes they were Democratic campaign consultants.
Posted by: Alex Hays on April 22, 2008 12:58 PMHonestly, it makes as much sense as the "Obama is a secret muslim/terrorist sypathizer" comments that seem to be going around.
I'm not the one saying that these are legitimate questions, but the GOP sure seems to be.
Posted by: Splinter on April 22, 2008 01:14 PMObama is NOT a ''secret muslim''.
Obama is NOT a terrorist sympathizer or supporter.
What the moonbat left seems to be totally incapable of grasping, is that in spite of last above there is still a valid and significant issue here; and that a large number of voters will quite reasonably be asking the question that Mike H. put so well and precisely @ 11:
''Senator Obama, why were you happily hanging out with a confessed terrorist who's only regret was that he didn't plant more bombs ?''
That is a completely legitimate question to ask someone who wants to be Commander in Chief. If the non-answers that have been presented to the public so far are all that we get, then (as commentators have already noted) it is just possible that William Ayers may end up being the ''Willie Horton'' of 2008.
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 22, 2008 02:15 PMAnd how is this different that McCain being "proud" to be associated with, and accept the endorsement of John Hagee. A religious zelot that recommended bombing Iran to bring on the second coming of Christ. A man who says Katrina was God's punishment for the sins of New Orleans. A man who thinks the Pope is the anti-christ and that the Vatican is "The Beast". This is a man McCain is proud to have endorsing him by the way and brags about his "leadership qualities". I don't really think McCain is an anti-catholic bigot, or that we should bomb Iran to help bring on the second coming, but I sure notice a double standard here.
Posted by: Splinter on April 22, 2008 02:41 PMAs for the empty suit and the empty pantsuit I say.......bleed each other out 'til the convention.
McCain will just slip into the Whitehouse while these two Baboons are still slinging poo at each other like the rest of the primates at the zoo.
So, what happens IF Clinton somehow convinces the majority of superdelegates at the Democrat Convention that she's the only viable candidate and they actually nominate her? My guess: Denver gets to experience the same thing Seattle did during the WTO riots times 10. Ditto every other major US city.
Right on Ken. A case in point, nobody is more moon-batty than Jimmy Carter these days. He ACTUALLY DID just sit down with a top terrorist and have dinner with him.
I would like to see another debate with Clinton and Obama in which they are asked, "do you agree with Jimmy Carter's decision to go against the US State Department and US Policy to sit down and talk to Hamas terrorists?" I wonder how loud Obaman would wail at that question.