There are at least two ways to explain the summer offensive John McCain has launched against Barack Obama, highlighted by last week's "Britney Spears" ad belittling the Illinois Democrat as "the biggest celebrity in the world."

One is that McCain, running in a lousy year for Republicans, needs to make this election about Obama.

The other is that this election already is about Obama - that whatever McCain says or does, the subject of Obama is going to dominate the coverage and conversation.

"It appears the McCain people are so frustrated with Obama's star appeal, and their sense that he is harder to criticize, (that) they've made the judgment they have to somehow tarnish him, rough him up, so that he doesn't look so great - even at the risk of making (McCain) himself look not so great," says Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who supports Obama, but is a longtime Senate collaborator and friend of McCain's.

"I don't think it's very pretty. I hope it doesn't work. But I think they've made a professional judgment that in order to win, this is what they have to do," Feingold said.

Matt Dowd, a key strategist in President's Bush's 2004 re-election race, said that the 2008 election is "either about Obama or about Bush. If it's about Bush, McCain loses. If it's about Obama, he has a possibility to win."

www.kansascity.com | 08/03/2008 | Obama is the star of McCain's campaign

And the irony of attacking Obama via "Britney"?
Britney should be more aptly compared to Bush with Bush's "I am the decider" mentality...


But as for the last quote (from Dowd), I think that is what all this Obama bashing is REALLY about.
If the Republicans talk about the issues, they'll be exposed as wanting another four years of Bush.
And there's no way in hell they can win on that...

You pretend you don't understand but you get it just fine.

John McCain is perfectly well suited to be President.

Barack Obama will do and say anything...ANYTHING to gain the power he craves...despite his obvious disqualifying faults.

And you have something invested in his win just as you had something invested in the US loss in the GWOT.

Everyone who was against the USA in the past is now FOR Obama.

That should tell everyone of you reading this what you need to know.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

Who is against the U.S.A.? Many are against GWB around the world. There is a growing anti U.S. attitude in many places. Not just Islamic countries. And some of it is a reaction to a perceived arrogance. Thanks again to the neocons. McCain won't change that attitude. But Barack may. They already like him. We need all the help we can get these days. We can't bully the world like we used to. They don't need us like they used to. We were the big market. Now there are markets all over the world. We had better be better negotiators. And we had better be about the business of strengthening our relationships with our allies. McCain isn't qualified.

This is correct...

The media has turned it's back on objectivity and made everything Obama-related...Wanna know McCain's position on domestic policy?...can't find it...

Wanna see Obama make a three-pointer?...Plenty of reporters on hand to let us know about that...

McCain doesn't have to just beat Obama...he has to beat his MSM minions...

And you believe this?...

During Bush's presidency, the conervative governmentsthat BACKED Bush were all re-elected with the exception of Spain (which was right after the Madrid bombings)...

The anti-Bush sentiment you speak of is their SHOWING you and not what is actually happening...

"I hate Bush...I'm going to vote for his ally."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

If given a choice between Obama or McCain who do you think they would choose?

Coming from a guy who thinks that Bush did a good job, you're objectivity is questionable.
As is mine, truth be told.

Nonetheless, judging from the PUBLIC's objectivity on Bush, it would seem there is a significantly different mind-set out there.

If McCain is "perfectly well suited", then why is everybody so gung-ho on attacking Obama?
Wouldn't the REAL analysis, without resorting to the mud-slinging McCain and his followers are devolving to, be to compare and contrast?


And isn't this even more true of McCain?
All his career, up until this last presidential run, he has had one set of standards which most Bush Republicans would frown upon.

And now, he has "flip flopped" into a Republican bobble-head character.


At this stage, you're just speaking to hear yourself speak.
You aren't even talking to me, otherwise you wouldn't be engaging yourself in such grotesque lies.
This absurd strawman argument.

I fully support our action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
I fully support our actions against bin Laden.
Can your president say the same?
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)


What they need to know about you?
Of that I am sure...

These kinds of inane and pointless generalizations, bashing your opponents with rhetoric and propaganda, are pointless.
They demonstrate the weakness of your cause.

Next time, try substance...

I am routinely amused at how the propaganda machine comes out, pumping out spin after spin to make you dizzy...

People like Obama? That's favoritism!
People criticize Obama? That's "objective".

McCain's position on domestic policy? Can't find it?
That's the supposed fault of MSM...

Tell you what. Despite your protest and pretense, there ARE groups out there that cover McCain positively.
Can you show ANY recent coverage of McCain talking about ACTUAL domestic policy?
Would you like me to link you to what McCain is REALLY talking about, instead of talking about substance?

Part of the funny part about this is that McCain's ATTACKS on Obama ARE getting coverage.
So that whole "MSM biased" riff just sounds hollow when they obviously DO cover McCain's words...


Cry me a fricken' river.
I can also link you to articles showing McCain's also worthless visit to Bush Sr.
Or McCain standing in front of "Dole" products in some grocery store.

A presidential candidate visiting abroad? That's news! (he did more there than just shoot a three-pointer)
A presidential candidate visiting a grocery store? That's lame!

Your boy is also getting coverage of his "worthless" moments as well.
But I imagine it's ONLY Obama getting a three-pointer that you think isn't newsworthy...
But a LONE heckler in Jerusalem is supposedly newsworthy...

Your bias is showing...


I'll ask it again.
WHAT is McCain ACTUALLY doing that deserves press coverage???

McCain ain't doing crap and that ain't the fault of the "MSM"...


Would you mind naming those countries?

Cause I think Britain's issues with the Downing Street Memos were pretty significant.
The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?
And also, Tony Blair is now out of office. Obviously his support of Bush played a hand in that.

Furthermore, regarding Bush...

In one multi-nation poll after Bush’s 2004 re-election, India and the Philippines were the only countries (out of 21 that were polled) where a majority (about 60%) saw his return to office as positive for peace and security in the world.[42] In one poll of ten countries, Israel was the only country where the population had a net favorable opinion, with 62 percent favoring Bush.[46]

Public perception of George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And an OBJECTIVE news outlet wouldn't swoon...And publicly admit heartbreak if Obama loses...They'd REPORT...

But instead, you get this...


It's been out there the whole time, but the MSM wants to make sure you know Obama worked out today...

Sure...

Laid out his energy policy amid the chirping of media crickets...

McCain's Speech On Energy Security - Council on Foreign Relations of the funny part about this is that McCain's ATTACKS on Obama ARE getting coverage.

ONLY when they're perceived as negative...

When NcCain talks about policy, you could hear a pin drop...But if he mentions the Lamb of Chicago, the MSM circles the wagons and yell "Look what the bad man said!!!"...

McCain's Speech On Energy Security - Council on Foreign Relations

No thanks...

I'm a Republican, so I'm used to this media treatment...

Then where were the 3 networks when McCain ran a trip to the very same places (save Germany)?...Why wasn't Katic and Brian tagging along with their tongues wagging?...

March of this year...McCain Visits Iraq to Meet With Officials

As he should've been long ago...

The media is starting to realize they've rah-rahed too hard and the public knows...

FOX News Poll: Does Obama Get Better Treatment by the Press?

It wasn't that there was a heckler...It was that it wasn't being REPORTED...

Saying "There was one heckler shouting that Jeruselem is not for sale." is simple enough...

The article were reporting it but the anchors in the media were not...

Just like pointing out there was free beer and two bands playing before Obama's speech in Berlin...

Were 3% there to hear the speech?...20%?...99.9999%...

You can't make that determination for yourself because it was never reported...You're supposed to think it was 100% and never be the wiser...

The same f-ing this EVERY candidate has done for the last 50 f-in' years!!!!!

He's had more townhalls than any other candidate...Townhalls (may I remind you) that Obama said he'd do with McCain but bailed out...

Of course if Obama WAS there, the networks would break out the kneepads and make it the top story...

Surely...

United Kingdom - Tony Blair - With victories in 1997, 2001, and 2005, Blair was the Labour Party's longest-serving prime minister, the only person to lead the party to three consecutive general election victories.(I discuss more on that leter)...

Australia - John Howard re-elected in 2004 (served FOUR terms...second longest PM is Australia's history)...

Japan - Junichiro Koizumi - Elected in 2001...Re-elected in 2003 and 2005...stepped down in 2005 as per party rules...

France - Jacques Chirac had to step down after his second term in 2007...He was re-elected in 2002 (which was BEFORE the Iraq War)...The FIRST French elections AFTER the Iraq War started brought in the pro-Bush Nicolas Sarkozy, who was running against the anti-Bush Marie-Ségolène Royal from the Socialist Party...

Germany - Chancellor Angela Merkel - Elected 2005...Beat anti-Bushite Gerhard Schröder...

And he lost...

You know how one shouldn't use FreeReublic or MoveOn.org as legitimate sourse?...DowningStreetMemo is the same...

From their own website...

So they are partisan on their own...yay...

Tony Blair is out of office because HE STEPPED DOWN!...His party is still in control...He just handed it off to the next in line...

But is you wanna say "It's Bush's faulkt he's not in office, have fun!...

BTW - Blair was re-elected DURING BUSH also...

And as for history, Blair was prime minister fo 10 years!!!...That's the longest tenure for a PM since 1801!!!!!

And as I've shown, his allies kept on getting re-elected throughout the war...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd