Fair
This ad is fair.
If Obama and his buddies didn’t want Rev. Wright to be used in ads, the Senator from Illinois shouldn’t have been a member of Wright’s hateful Church for over 20 years. If he didn’t want Wright to be used against him, Senator Obama shouldn’t have called Wright his “spiritual mentor.” If judgment is what matters, and according to the Obama campaign it does since their man has no experience or credentials, his association with Wright matters.
In short, the man should stop complaining, so should some of his supporters, and John McCain too should say what’s obvious; this ad is fair.
If we really want to talk about what’s fair and unfair we should also spend some time to this column written by Geoff Garin, Clinton’s new strategist. Garin rightfully points out that whatever Hillary does is deemed unfair by Obama and his A-Team of whiners, whereas whatever Obama does to and says about Clinton is alright.
So let me get this straight.
On the one hand, it’s perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what’s right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama’s preparedness to the voters.
Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?
Since Obama gained popularity, this is what happened to this race. His acolytes start whining and crying whenever a negative ad is aired, attacking their favorite candidate. But they and Obama himself are allowed to say whatever they want to say about Clinton; when they attack her, they’re just ‘keeping it real.’
Too sick - and slick - for words. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination - and he most likely will - he’ll turn that party into a party of whiners. Crying foul constantly, whining about this, whining about that, and a soft foreign policy, cuddling up to Hamas since they are also experts at whining.
Does anyone who supports Clinton over Obama believe that attacking Clinton is out of bounds? Of course not. Obama is allowed to talk negatively about her. Considering the fact that he’s her opponent it’s even quite logical that he does so. And it’s also quite logical that he and his merry bunch of whiners (certain bloggers, but also many readers and commenters and, of course, certain Democratic Party leaders) publish negative ads personally attacking the former First Lady.
But it’s also logical that Clinton and those who support her attack and criticize Obama. It’s all part of the game. It’s all fair. Clinton and those who support her haven’t attacked Obama more aggressively than Obama and quite some of his supporters (especially his far-left supporters) have attacked and criticized Clinton. The only thing the former excel at, however, is whining.
In short, these people should get over themselves… and especially over Obama.
I know you don’t want to hold Clinton to the same standards - as Usual Michael.
So the best thing for you to do - if you think it is fair - is to donate money to keep the Ad on the air.
I think Obama should take of the kid gloves and really go after her.
Ahahahhaahahahahahahahahaha. Read the post man, you’re making yourself look ridiculous.
He has run a more negative campaign than Clinton has - yes, really!- but it’s fine for him to go even more negative. But stop whining and crying foul when Clinton goes more negative on his inexperienced and possibly anti-Israel butt as well.
Well I’d say your sad state of blindness with Clinton, and your increasing tone on it has made you ridiculous for some time now. Anytime you’ve been challenged to prove facts, you’ve simply not responded - or in Clintonian fashion - attempted to change the subject.
When has Clinton handled a hot cup of coffee without crying about it?
Hahaha! If I was you, I would now start whining.
Still, you didn’t read the post. Funny stuff.
why bother? it’s you - I already know what you are going to put. Read one sentence and it’s enough, analysis is not part of your posts with her.So, donate to the Ad?
Better than that. I run the ad on a website visited by thousands.
And if you don’t read the post, you shouldn’t comment. Equal treatment is exactly my point; he can go after Clinton as hard as he wants to (he’s already doing it by the way), but he and certain supporters of his should stop whining when Clinton or people who simply oppose Obama strike back.
But whining and not reading posts, yet commenting on them is so much easier isn’t it?
So is that a no? You don’t believe in it to donate to it yourself?
Fair? An ad that implies that Obama listened to that sort of thing every day for 20 years, that he also SUBSCRIBES to it, and that his SUPPORTERS in supporting him, support that message? Fair? Are you joking?
Beyond the pale Michael, even McCain recognized it.
NO it’snot beyond the pale, and McCain shouldn’t have said it was. It’s real. Obama was in Church when some of the things were said. Wright says offensive stuff just about constantly. Obama knows. That’s even why they canceled Wright’s introduction talk when Obama announced he’d run for president. The tapes can be bought at the Church. The magazine is more proof.
O no, he listened to this stuff (either that or he fell asleep, during which he could make notes nonetheless), he considers a racist his spiritual mentor… it’s fair to attack him over that. More than fair even.
Let me see: donating money to it or publishing it… What’s more effective? Right. Pity man.
so…That’s a No right?
You don’t believe it’s fair to donate to it yourself, but want others to do it for you instead AND you turn around and attack the simple logic. Wow you are for Clinton aren’t you.
He’s associating with a racist and an anti-American radical. More so than Ron Paul did. But I and some of you here blasted Paul over it.
Double standards indeed.
You do have humor. Is this how Obamaphiles operate? Should I whine now? How does this work?
I was thinking you could whine a little less Michael.
Simple question that you keep dodging around, if you think it is so fair, why don’t you donate to it? You can donate AND publish it. Unless you think that would violate some type of Candidate support ethics that you may have.
And you know this how? Because people say so? He was in church when some of the things in the video were said? No, actually he WASN’T, something that has been proved previously.
McCain said he was just pleased as punch to have the endorsement of the guy who calls the Catholic Church the "great whore" and who just recently said that Hurricane Katrina was retribution for organizing a gay pride parade, and yet we don’t see McCain being called to task for SEEKING that endorsement.
admin: if you can’t comment without cussing people out, don’t bother
Except its not an attack ad on Obama, but on two Democrats who have supported Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
So the NC Republican party is trying to link these Democrats to Reverend Wright, for no reason other than wanting to see Obama the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary.
Now that we have that straight, maybe we can ask again, is it fair?Maybe fair is the wrong evaluation, but the intent of the ad is really, really stupid.
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination - and he most likely will - he’ll turn that party into a party of whiners.
Turn it into a party of whiners? Let’s see…the Clintons since day one have described every criticism of themselves as an attack by the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ even though we now have proof that HC and her inner circle were themselves honing their politics of personal destruction in order to try to push her healthcare agenda.
The Dem party this cycle has nominated two figureheads of identity politics, and every criticism of either candidate is met by accusations of playing the race card or the gender card.
The Dem majority in Congress has been incredibly impotent, and chooses to put up one bill after another that they know they can’t pass, and then to whine about those mean obstructionists in the GOP minority.
In 2000, Al Gore lost the electoral count but took his complaints to the courts, and many Dems still can’t believe that he actually lost. And of course, the only reason it was even close was because Nader acted as a spoiler.
Kerry then lost in ‘04, yet instead of acknowledging that he was a poor choice and didn’t run a good enough campaign, it was all Rove’s fault, or it was the Swiftboaters fault, or it was because the GOP intimidated voters, or it was those diabolical Diebold machines.
No, it’s too late to turn the Democratic party into the party of whiners; the sore loser strategy has been part of their platform for a number of years now.
I agree with Redfish, BTW. The ad is stupid because it involves several steps of guilt by association; it’s not normal or legitimate to criticize one politician for the associations of another politician whom he/she endorses. If the ad had implied that those local politician’s endorsement of Obama was out of the mainstream of NC politics because of his liberal voting record in the Senate, that would have made more sense.
And in any case, I think that McCain understands that his own interest is served by distancing himself from the mudslinging kind of campaigning. Conservatives like Michelle Malkin can’t stand the fact that he’s deciding to run his campaign that way, and all they end up doing is helping him when they criticize him this way; the best way for McCain to burnish his cred with independents is to be seen as resisting the calls of the hardcore conservative base to go negative.