It seems that only GOP, and the Clintons know how run an effective campaign. They put their adversaries almost always on the defensive, and that really really works. The result: clinton is one the rare democrats to handle 2 terms.
We're feeling some fatigue about Obama's softness.
Despite all McCain troubles: his flip flops, his lobbyists, his stupid statements, his protean discourses, his naive positions about the Georgia conflict; Obama still is on the defensive. I can't believe it !
Let's have a look about that last video of that "soft" and strange guy defending Obama on taxes. That's almost nauseous.
You be tough or you stop doing politics ! Rove is right on this, this is a contact game. Be "soft" at your intimacy, but in politics you'd rather be tough always.
I wonder what the Campaign is waiting for to react to McCain "naïve-boat".
He's insisting painting Obama as naïve, inexperienced, even ignorant.
He wants to educate Obama on Iraq !
McCain wants to educate Obama on Iraq, while McCain doesn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
What's exactly his foreign policies expertise, when he doesn't even understand Iran political systems; when his knowledge on Iran isn't better than average Americans'
For McCain Amadinejad is the leader, because that's what "average Americans understand".
And...
"Iran is training Al-Qaida"(sic)…
He didn't need advisers when it came to foreign policies, when it was for attacking Mitt Romney, but what he would know if it wasn't Lieberman to make him understand Iran wouldn't train Al-Qaida.
So, what are we waiting for? Don't we have to act as we did for Hillary about her experience pretention.
McCain is becoming unsustainably pretentious, I would say nasty at this point.
We can't afford him to create that unfair image of Obama. The Campaign has to react before he makes more damage….
What about black support? Is she doing well among black folks, or they simply don't count?
Why is she insisting with the race card?
A couple of weeks ago, Hillary's hobbyhorse was experience. After a closer look to what she pretended her experience, it came to the conclusion that it was more verbal than factual. She now seldom mentions her experience. Now let's ask her a little about her electability.
I think that's very important, for it's the last grip she gets in her attack against Obama.
What's makes Hillary pretend she's more electable that Barack?
She alleges that Barack is more vulnerable? Is it that true? Because every
slip of the tongue from Obama is magnified by her, in such a way to make it look like a huge big mistake, and a pretext to try to make people believe she is better candidate for general election. She adopts this attitude, because she seems to be the only democrat candidate with a license to attack other democrats. But does that mean she won't be attacked hard by the Republicans, that she won't receive the same or worse treatments than she's doing to Obama? Can Hillary stand hard critics on her ethics, on her relation with doubtful people that surround her, on her huge amount of lies? Can she bear Republican attacks on all her scandals?
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
What does Hillary reproach other candidates that we can't find worse on her side? Isn't her allegation about Barack's surrogate on NAFTA less grave that her chief campaign lobbying on Colombia free trade? Is the Obama trade with Rezko worst than Clintons' relationship with Peter Paul, an ex-con, and notorious swindler? What about Hsu? Who hasn't seen "Hillary, the movie"?
How can someone of this background pretends she's more electable that any other? How can a forgetful 60-year-old person -according her own husband words- who is too tired to tell the truth at 11PM, can pick up a 3-AM-phone call at the White house? What would she find to say at 3AM, if she loses her memory at 11PM?
I believe it's urgent that Obama's campaign does something about that electability matter, that the campaign makes people understand that this question isn't less capricious than any others. Let's silence Hillary on this, as well as it happened on her experience. Let's do it, but let's do it now !
Hope, change, no lobbyist, Yes we can. That's what Clinton doesn't like to hear, that's what she is afraid to hear. Let's not shut up.
Yes we can do it.
But like in a soccer game, it isn't enough to defend, but to counter-attack: NAFTA, Irak, her healthcare plan, her tax return...
NAFTA, NAFTA, NAFTA again, even she gets mad at us.
Let's not forget her contradictions, her ridiculous 35 years of experience. Her 80 countries, like Jules Verne's world tour in 80 days.
Drive her saying more nonses, let's have her losing her calm, let's make her know olderness doesn't mean experience.
Clinton's lack of judgment is obvious, even in elementary logic: Hillary said McCain and she are ready to be commander in chief, but Obama, not. Now she wants Obama for veep. Isn’t that contradictory? A vice-president is supposed to rule, in case it comes to happen something to the president (impeachment, physical incapacitation, etc). Veep would became the commander in chief. That means Clinton plans to leave the country into the hands of someone she said isn't ready to be commander in chief. Either Clinton is acting with bad faith, either she lacks judgment, or what really matters to her is not the safety of our nation, but her becoming president.
Isn’t it obvious that she is false, her words are false, her behavior is false, even her smile isn't sincere? She doesn't care about national security at all, even lesser about the Party. Her only wish is to win, and be in power. If she can’t win the nomination, she'd prefer McCain to win general election. She doesn't care at all about the Party to win, if she isn't the winner.
