Obama's New Vulnerability

WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | 2/21/2008 | Karl Rove

[OnRiver]

John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people." Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue. Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

[detective]

The Obamas polital career has been funded by George Soros. Soros hates America and so do the Obamas.

Unlike Kerry, Barack Obama Covets George Soros’ Support
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
July 27, 2004

Obama, however, is different from most Democrats because of his willingness to embrace the controversial Soros. Shortly after Soros equated the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Obama joined him for a New York fund-raiser June 7.

…Not only did George Soros donate to Obama’s campaign, but four other family members - Jennifer, sons Jonathan and Robert and wife Susan - did as well.

Because of a special provision campaign finance laws, the Soroses were able to give a collective $60,000 to Obama during his primary challenge

[Wallace T.]

Hillary will surely find a way to stab Obama in the back.

The problem with that scenario is that a backroom deal would alienate Obama supporters, particularly African Americans. Any backhanded attempt by the Clintons to steal the nomination will backfire in November. You must also consider the ability of the black community to "go nuclear", staging riots of the sort and scale that followed the death of Martin Luther King and the acquittal of the policemen accused of assaulting Rodney King. Rioting mobs in dozens of cities from coast to coast will frighten white voters to go for McCain. Combine that with a likely election boycott by blacks and you have the makings of a Democrat disaster.

I don't believe the Clintons will go that far, or will be permitted to do so. Bill Clinton said at a political rally yesterday that if his wife loses in Texas and Ohio, the campaign is over. As evil and unscrupulous as the Clintons are, they have their limits.

[Timmy]

In 1988, Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by 17 points in the polls, using the same kind of rhetoric Obama is using. And, he had been governor of a state and author of the [fraudulent] "Massachusetts Miracle." We all know that when the real attacks on his "record" began, he dropped like a rock and lost in a landslide. The American people are different, now, to be sure. But the point is that the McCain (and Clinton, if she goes on the offensive) attacks WILL hurt him to some degree. It's won't, in the end, be a messianic campaign. He will have to win it the old-fashioned way. I'm not convinced he can do it.

[ex-Texan]

Respectfully, I disagree. Rush Limbaugh, himself, spent nearly a week talking about that precise scenario on his radio show. Hillary is a famous witch from hell. Is there any doubt that her antics drove Bill to seek ‘special comforts’ from a fat White House intern ____________ ?

[ottbmare]

the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."

He is going to have to come up with snappier sound bites. That one is kind of a mouthful and not something that's going to make people scream and faint.

[paleorite]

—In 1988, Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by 17 points in the polls, using the same kind of rhetoric Obama is using. —

Yes I remember that well. I also remember that Dukakis had the charisma of a dog turd. The one advantage Barry Hussein has is that when he turns the charm on, he makes Jack Kennedy look like Dick Nixon.

[Wallace T.]

Rush Limbaugh is a brilliant analyst of politics, and you must factor in the Clintons’ lack of mental stability (both of them). But any successful attempt to knock Obama out through dirty tricks would be like handing the keys to the White House to McCain on a silver platter. Without a large African American vote, the Democrats will likely lose Pennsylvania and Michigan, and probably Illinois as well. They will have no chance to take Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or Missouri, states the Democrats feel are up for grabs.

For conservatives, this would be both good and bad. The bad part would be that McCain would not be compelled to cater to conservative concerns. The good part is that this nation may be spared governance by a man who is possibly a closet Marxist and who would bring in advisers that would make the Bill Clinton cabinet look like the second coming of the Coolidge administration.

[montag813]

[epow]

If common sense was common Obama wouldn't be where he is today, but it isn't and that's why it doesn't matter in this election. Obama is equivalent to a political rock star. The under 30 vote is turning out in record numbers for him in every state. Barring a miracle he's our next president, arrrrrrgggg.

I never dreamed that I would say this about them, but I honestly would rather have Hill'nBill back in the White House than this guy. We know that Hill'nBill are treacherous scum who lied every minute of every day and sold us out to the Chinese for campaign money, but Sheik Barack Hussein Obama is by far the scariest man who has ever made a serious run for that office. I'm actually hoping that Hill'nBill have some dirty, filthy, nasty trick up their sleeves that will knock Obama off at the Dem convention, but that's not likely when the entire Rat party under 50 is falling in behind him like kids following the Pied Piper.

[paleorite]

—”eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people.”—

I counted thirty-six words in that quote! If a politician can’t make his point in 25 words or less, it’s a point not worth making. A cranky old coot like McCain will put the multitudes too sleep with windy rhetoric like that.

[epow]

the average “American” voter is no where near sophisticated enough to grasp any of this. They vote on the basis of knee jerk emotional reactionism, not on the basis of intellectually sound analysis

You're absolutely right, and it gets worse every four years now. Who's next to push the right buttons on the brain dead electorate's collective forehead, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the next American Idol??

[ex-Texan]

About your last point: Jesse Jackson warned the Democrats in a speech about that very thing a few days ago. He apparently is worried about the Clintons' mental stability as well.

Everybody with half a brain knows that Bill is a sex addict and Hillary has lesbian tendencies. She even dresses like famous gay television stars wearing the pantsuit uniform that is required today: Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres.

[paleorite]

OOPS, I meant “to sleep”, not “too sleep”. :=P

[oblomov]

Ok, you’re right...”dissolute mommy” then...

[OnRiver]

Can any of you make Obama look like Alfred E. Newman...from Mad....he sure has those ears....and that smile....morhing from him to Obama...I’m sure someone has the technical knowledge....I sure don’t...

[glide625]

You’re on it! Jerry Springer Nation could easily elect anyone, but would probably opt for the individual with the most notoriety.

[Iris7]

I think less Gov’t is the answer - not more Gov’t.

Plato, Thucydides, and Plutarch covered this ground long ago. The Marius - Sulla - Caesar period is enlightening.

One has to go back so far in time because “democracy” was in such poor repute after the Classic Era that it didn’t return until the 20th Century.

Santayana - “Those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

Ortega y Gassett - “If one thing can be learned from history it is that people do not learn from it.”

Anyway, “less government” is not in the cards without, at least, the end of “one man, one vote”. I wish I were wrong.

[WOSG]

“Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama’s declaration he won’t be beholden to lobbyists and special interests.”

Obama is beholden to Big Labor, in particular the leftwing SEIU, and acknolwedged them at his Houston speech.

it’s not that McCain is an angel wrt lobbyists, but the claim that Obama makes as being different from any runofthemill leftist senator, hip-deep in the liberal special interests pockets (planned parenthood, NARAL, feminists, liberal hollywood, tort lawyers, his friend Tony, Unions, cheap labor, etc.) is clearly false.

“if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.—” yes.

obviously only a Republican will make those points, since obama and clinton were fighting over who would get the support from these groups, so they had their own bidding war, eg, to out pro-abort eachother in New Hampshire.

[WOSG]

“The candidates aren’t properly vetted by their respective party organizations before being allowed to run”

ROFLMAO!

Here we have lots of Freepers whining about the “RNC picking McCain” when RNC did no such thing and the GOP primary voters did that... curiously picking the runner-up in 2000; just like 1996 was the runnerup guy from 1988; and in 1988 we picked the runnerup guy from 1980; and in 1980 we picked the runnerup guy from 1976; and in 1968 we picked the guy from 1960 who almost made it. etc.

So you propose to replace the sheeple picking the ‘next guy in line’ to going back to the good old days when the insider picked the next guy in line.

“They vote on the basis of knee jerk emotional reactionism, not on the basis of intellectually sound analysis.”
Was it ever otherwise? Democracy - the worst form of Govt ... except for all the rest.

[WOSG]

In 1988, Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by 17 points in the polls, using the same kind of rhetoric Obama is using. And, he had been governor of a state and author of the [fraudulent] "Massachusetts Miracle." We all know that when the real attacks on his "record" began, he dropped like a rock and lost in a landslide. The American people are different, now, to be sure.

Correct. Dukakis ran on 'competence'. Obama is running on "change". They are running ideologically empty campaigns ... when people get the answer to the question 'where's the beef?' they wont like the answer. Dukakis was foolish enough not to run away from the ACLU card-carrying label, but Obama will try to call any such attacks that label him as left-liberal as 'fearmongering'. He will, like Clinton, run a fundamentally dishonest campaign that promises to do one thing, while his real agenda is another.

... attacks WILL hurt him to some degree. It's won't, in the end, be a messianic campaign.

It depends on how hard McCain will try to break the obama spell.. For Hillary, it is too late and besides, she cant attack Obama as too liberal, that would be a selling point for the primary. And the media will keep the obama myth alive and his cover protected.

But Rove is right - by answering the 'empty suit' charge, Obama has filled in his agenda: pro-amnesty, pro-abortion, for federal funding of teachers and a dozen other giveaways, he's got marxist pals and Che-Cuban-flag-waving supporters. Obama is the best the Democrats have put up in a while in terms of rhetorical skills, but in terms of record, its a real left-liberal one. He will have to win it the old-fashioned way. - Obama will win it via his skillful unconventional campaign, or not at all... the 'old-fashioned way' would leave him way behind. He's way way way too liberal and too inexperienced to be good for America.