digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at rawstory.com

Obama building anti-Swift Boat machine

rawstory.com — "He's not going to sit there and sing 'Kumbaya' as the missiles are raining in," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, tells Newsweek. The Obama campaign is expanding its research and rapid-response outfit to repel planned "Swift-Boat" like attacks, the magazine will report.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • knumbknuts, on 04/21/2008, -9/+39Good. Let's have an election decided on policy for a change. These are the same asshats who took down McCain in 2000.
    That having been said, Kerry begged for what he got, opening his military service up for scrutiny by pointing to it, repeatedly.
    Both McCain and Obama say they want an election based on policies. There is enough difference between them to hope for that.
    Too bad, I haven't seen much analysis of Obama's policy decisions of the past. McCain's are pretty clear and well-known.
    • minox, on 04/21/2008, -6/+8Hard to analyze votes to name post offices.
    • MoofTheStoof, on 04/21/2008, -4/+6"That having been said, Kerry begged for what he got, opening his military service up for scrutiny by pointing to it, repeatedly." -

      and then not releasing the documents backing him up totally and completely disproving the swiftboaters. Not going public with his documented military record until after the election was just dumb, dumb, dumb. In the end, his losing had more to do with the disenfranchised in Ohio than the swiftboat campaign, but, still, it's hard not to think that if he'd have tried harder, he could have overcome their fixed numbers.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3u are dead right.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 04/21/2008, -8/+2The only reason for Kerry not to go public with his medical records from Vietnam was that they would only prove the Swift Boat Vets right. He knew long before the election that they had seriously damaged him, and with the presidency on the line, it was no time for pussyfooting around.

        Let's face it, Kerry is an opportunist who knew how to turn a metal splinter into a Purple Heart. His whole life has been devoted to building his political resume, by any means.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5It's all a matter of public record, now. If you took the time to look at them, you'd see that the swiftboating was a deplorable and dishonest attack on an honorable man. Maybe not the best candidate I've ever seen, but certainly orders of magnitude better than Bush. I somehow doubt that facts will change your mind, though.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Nope. Kerry released SELECTED DOCUMENTS from his medical records, not the full medical records. To date, he has not allowed full public access to those records.
    • Darkside2984, on 04/21/2008, -8/+6People, as silly as we can be, do not vote for people who give them no policy substance. Eventually we get tired of "change" and "I'm not Bush". McCain represents leadership and an iron will. His mother is almost 100 and goes campaigning. Also, the largest demographic of voters is over 55. We, the people between the ages of 18-30 vote in the lowest numbers (just over 5%). Obama cannot win with 18-30 years olds anymore than Ron Paul had a snowball's chance in Hell in winning the Republican Primary. We simply do not vote and when we do it's on the issues. Young people are quick to become disenfranchised with this huge political machine and by the time Obama actually begins to speak about policy, we will have already tuned out...
      • stonewaljacksn, on 04/21/2008, -4/+4I agree for the most part, but the fact that it seems so many young people went from supporting Ron Paul to supporting Obama makes me question just how much "young people" actually vote on the issues.
        • br0ck, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3What do you mean, you people? 16,000 on the site openly back Obama and 19,000 openly back Ron Paul according to http://digg.com/elections/ so it is far more likely that people aren't switching in droves, but that the Obama is a huge percentage of national news in the country right now and his supporters are just more likely to be vocal now than Ron Paul supporters whom don't have a candidate that's in the national spotlight every day.
        • DavidS9, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1yeah but digg isn't exactly the hottest thing since sliced bread so saying the Digg Ron Paul supporters aren't switching doesn't account for much
      • DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1I don't think there is a lot of Ron Paul supports going to Obama,..... the fundamental ideological differences are huge (except if the ONLY issue you care about is the Iraq war). I think both candidates appeal to the younger generation and those people are on digg. In other words, if Obama had the "fame" as Ron Paul did back in December, I think Digg would have been one huge flame war.

        By the way, I am 21 and find McCain the best qualified. Not all of us vote based on what is "cool" at the moment.
        • hittnrun, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2Good for you.

          However, it was always a little strange that the Paulbots were mostly liberal college kids and older tin-foil wearing crackpots. Now, those people are all Osamabots.
        • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1How can you find McCain to be the best? Just because he has experience and clearly defined policies? Don't you want "change"? Don't you want "I'm not Bush?"
        • netant, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1"Best qualified" does not mean "Best candidate". Al Gore's qualifications blew away GWB, and a lot of good it did Al. Richard Nixon's qualifications blew away JFK's, and a lot of good it did Tricky Dick. Don Rumsfeldt's qualifications probably blow away McCain's, you'd still would not want Rumsfeldt to be president.

          The key things to consider with McCain is "Can you forgive aiding a banking swindler from SEC investigation"?, "Is it acceptable to risk electing a President that can become mentally incapable of properly executing the duties of the Office"?, "And given the critical challenges facing the nation, can we affort a candidate that does not support particular policy positions"?

          Question 2 may seem unfair, but hell, McCain is no spring chicken. Its apparent that Ronald Reagan became mentally handicapped by his 2nd term in office. And the two critical issues facing the US is Iraq policy and our economy. Can you support going broke in Iraq and discard American lives in the process? And you think the banking/securities industry should keep gambling with mortgages/derivatives, and should the taxpayer go broke bailing them out? If you can say yes to all three, then you're a McCain man.
      • r00fus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5McCain represents leadership and an iron will.
        You mean the IRON WILL that stood up to the religious right in 2000?
        THe same one that is now begging and scraping for the religious wignut support in 2008?
        More like leadership with an iron fist.
      • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Pro-Republican and he's only sitting at -1 diggs? Where did all the zealous pro-obama hard-left liberal robots on this site go, all of the sudden?
        • netant, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1We're not against someone with a flawed opinion. We bury outright stupidity.
    • exronin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Maybe if you got your news from somewhere besides faux and did your own research you would see the policy analysis of Obama.
      • knumbknuts, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Actually, I watch MSNBC. By your use of faux, I can tell you do, as well.

        But, you just go on thinking everyone who questions Obama's record, or can't find it to their satisfaction, is a right wing goosestepper.
        • exronin, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2no i actually read iht and bbc. sometimes the best perspective and analysis is an outside one.
      • DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3I like how he brags about watching MSNBC instead of fox. It's like a chef bragging that he deep-fries with only the best ingredients. What knumkbnuts doesn't understand is all cable-news is water down. I suppose if he actually read a book, he might be able to counter with real facts than the typical 12 year old banter.
      • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Ahh... I was wondering how long we'd go on this before we got the first Fox News attack. Read Obama's website about his policies and tell me it's not vague. You can't blame that on misreporting / media bias.
        • exronin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1lol thats fine, look it up on other websites, the bills he's passed etc.
          Because going to candidates website is the best way to assess them. /sarcasm.

          The websites are built for people with 90 IQ who need happy fun quotes and speeches to form their opinions. If you really want true perspective on candidates you have to do your own research, not rely on propaganda.
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3The O-man's swift boat is the William Ayers controversy and it is not going away.

      Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol.

      Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He’s appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. In 2001, Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough."

      You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it.
    • RealHyperX, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Obama and his communist friends... please... he is not getting elected... no way in hell
      • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Communism is cool now. Just label it to be "Progressive" instead of "Communist" and all of the little kiddies who weren't alive during the Cold War will think it's something new!
        • netant, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1We can see how cool it is to be a neoconservative.
  • Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -21/+32Gee, I don't where Kerry got the mistaken idea that people respected military service. And just in case you're under any delusions to the contrary, the swift-boat campaign had nothing to do with scrutinizing. They don't hand bronze and silver stars out of a crackerjack box.
    • hittnrun, on 04/21/2008, -4/+3They hand them out to people who "game" the system though, apparently.
  • LumpOfCole, on 04/21/2008, -7/+41It seems to be that Obama has been an anti-Swift Boat machine thus far.
    • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6it hasnt even started, i'm afraid. they need to prepare. you though farakhan, wright, ayers were old news? trust me when i say the republicans are putting together every link they can dig up and they're gonna slam him hard. he needs to be ready for this
      • r00fus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5Once the Hillary supporters realize that their candidate is not going to win, they'll sign up... and we'll have a unified front against the Republican slime. Till then, it's their group that's throwing the most slime.
    • DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0I am sure moveon.org isn't planning the same thing =p God you must love these "non-partisan groups".
      • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4indeed. but it certainly wont be centered around tying mccain to terrorists organizations and labelling him anti-american.

        probably more along the lines of his massive flip-flopping on issues to pander to the republican base, like they did with kerry. the current push is tying iraq to economic hardships to make iraq an issue more central to working-class voters (im on the mailing list)
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Yup, the democrats are spending millions of dollars to promote their internal fighting. This will be free ammunition for the republicans in the general election.
  • Ell3, on 04/21/2008, -49/+15Wow. No wonder Obama is so popular. What a great leader he's been to the black population in Chicago.

    http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.viole ...
    • Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -4/+31Who said he was the leader of the black population of Chicago?
    • buhbyebot, on 04/21/2008, -5/+18More talking points from the Ell3-bot.
      • lhbaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3She'll get banned again soon enough.
    • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -6/+16Wow. No wonder Ell3 makes such stupid posts. Look at her recent history and see the utter lack of research or objectivity. The one-sided idealism borders on Marxism or Communism.

      http://digg.com/users/Ell3

      /Roved
    • kiubo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7Ell3 the election Troll strikes again!
      The more she/he posts the less credible they become.
    • Ebonsteel, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Posts by such blatant, obvious GOP operatives make me laugh. Ell3 is also among the most transparent of the bunch. Whatever she is getting paid, it's too much.
      • lhbaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I can get paid to say stupid stuff on Digg? Where do I sign up?
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -6/+3Instead of denigrating small town America for being bitter, he should spend some time dissing his own community. A violent and deadly weekend continues in Chicago. At least 12 people have been shot, two of them killed, since Saturday morning. Two others were stabbed in a home invasion. This comes after at least 20 people were shot, four of them killed, from Friday night through early Saturday.

      Looks like the bitter people have come home to ROOST!
      • Ell3, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Very well said.
      • PATSCRU, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Before this weekend, Chicago's murder rate was well below their numbers for this time last week....are you expecting him to patrol the streets? Besides crime prevention is mostly a city issue, senators have little to no say in these municipal issues. Nice try though...perhaps instead of looking for tangential opportunities to trash a candidate, you can try taking a meaningful role in the political discourse.
    • lhbaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1What is he, the Sherrif?
  • amightywind, on 04/21/2008, -46/+14Obama has been kind enough to give us much more material then Kerry ever did. What are they going to do? Confess, grovel? I don't know how you can hide being anti-American when you run for the Presidency.
    • Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -13/+21Smells like poo in here. Did you open your mouth again amighty?
      • kiubo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5No that would be the mightywind coming out of his ass. again.
    • kurttrail, on 04/21/2008, -6/+15The difference between Kerry and Obama is that liberal & centrist independents like Obama, where Kerry wasn't much liked by independents.

      So smear away. I will only backfire on McCain & the rest of the Republicans up for election, as we independents aren't gonna let ya'll get away with it.
    • MoofTheStoof, on 04/21/2008, -6/+8George W. Bush did a fairly good job of it. None of us suspected when he was running that he was anything more than a rich-boy, dry-drunk, failed executive. Yet he went on to do more to subvert the Constitution than any person in the history of the country. We're going to be decades fixing his damage.
    • lhbaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Bush loves the Constitution. It comes in handy when he runs out of silk toilet paper.
  • chaserm, on 04/21/2008, -25/+7What a sellout piece of *****!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/ap_on_el_pr/ob ...
    • LeggoMyEgo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2In that case, she must have been so pissed at herself when she said that McCain was more qualified than Obama for dealing with foreign policy.
    • jellygraph, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5If you comment made any sense, I wouldn't have been left with the feeling that you are in fact the piece of ****.
  • JimmySpaza, on 04/21/2008, -38/+15If there are no skeletons in the closet for Obama, then there will be no need to run an anti-Swiftboat campaign.

    But, given Obama's liberal record and his associations with known racists and terrorists, I'd say that Obama knows he's going to take some big hits when the general election begins.
    • Stevo23, on 04/21/2008, -6/+24Um, you do realize the Swiftboat attacks centered around tarnishing John Kerry's honorable military record, right? It wasn't about digging up skeletons, it was about taking a positive and turning it back on him.
      • felman87, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8in that case, there's a lot of positive material for them to turn back on him
      • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Kerry's honorable military record? You won't hear that from the men who served along side John "Genghis Khan" Kerry. We are still waiting for Kerry to explain how he claims that Nixon ordered him into Cambodia on Christmas a month before Nixon was sworn in as President.
    • kaelyiesta, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_ ...

      Don't get me wrong, I don't think obama is in the same league of scum as most politicians, but what you said is absurd. For all this mockery of ron paul being viewed as god, there sure is a lot of people thinking the same of obama when its just not true.
      • DavidS9, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0The only reason you don't think Obama is a liberal scum bag is because he is so new no one knows who he is. If he waited to much longer to run he wouldn't have even won one state let alone gone as far as he has
    • kurttrail, on 04/21/2008, -7/+12Spaz you are delusional. But thanks for the laughs at your expense!
    • didiman, on 04/21/2008, -11/+8If you were to ask me a few months ago I would have said that there is no way a republican will win the presidency in November (because of the political climate, historical trends, etc.), but now I would say that a McCain win is almost a certainty. Obama will more than likely win the nomination, but he stands no chance at winning in Ohio, Florida, PA, etc. in the general election and without those states he stands no chance.
    • MrErr, on 04/21/2008, -5/+7Obama is already the target of negative attacks and he is doing well so far. I hate to say this but democracy is a lost cause when swiftboat attacks are the way an election is decided.
      • didiman, on 04/21/2008, -4/+6He's doing well in the primary and is doing ok in national polls. However, if you look at the electoral map he is not doing well at all.
  • vacax, on 04/21/2008, -13/+4They call it the deblackifier
  • felman87, on 04/21/2008, -2/+18So...he's building a submarine? Awesome.
    • akilleen, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1A good speaker and an Engineer! Awesome!
  • moolaismyfriend, on 04/21/2008, -8/+23You mean he is building a machine to deal with white trash knuckle draggers.
  • tvfilm, on 04/21/2008, -23/+7Why does he need an ANTI SWIFT AD CAMPAIGN. answer that. idiots
    • MadKennyP, on 04/21/2008, -4/+16Because the Swift Boat Ads were based on LIES and DISTORTIONS and not on the issues. Just like the attacks on Obama. Answer that, moron.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I think it can be proven that many of Kerry's operations were secret and thus undocumented. No one but him really knows if he's lying.
      • MrErr, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Ok everyone lets be civil. Lets stop calling each idiots and morons. Just digg down tvfilm comment and digg up MadKennyP's comment for refuting tvfilm.
      • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1The Swift Boat ads were based on truth. It was Kerry's statements that were lies and distortions. Just ask all of the honorable men who served along side him. They spoke the truth.
        • MadKennyP, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Let's see... one of the Swift Boat Vets began his statement with "I served with John Kerry..." yet, as it turned out, he did not. They were both in Vietnam at the same time, but never cross paths. There's the first lie of many throughout the Swift Boat ads.
        • MadKennyP, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1more detail:
          None of the 13 men in the TV ad served on either of the two swift boats — small, lightly armed patrol craft — that Kerry commanded. Of the group's 254 members — out of 3,500 swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam — only one served under Kerry. The rest who did serve on Kerry's boats back his record.
          http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nat ...
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4Answer what?

      That was a statement, not a question.
    • chukd, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Calling people idiots doesn't give your weak argument any credibility.
  • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -7/+45I think these "Rovian" tactics are a big gamble. There's a huge potential for backlash since it takes policies off the table and replaces it with negative feelings of anger and uncertainty that make Americans feel bad. I think that with a little reality check they are likely to turn their anger to the people who are fomenting it as opposed to the proposed targets of said anger.

    Obama is in a good position, because every time they bring this ***** up they let the other shoe drop. They raise the question and Obama gives the answer. That's the mistake. There is no control over how Obama answers. And to answer his answer puts the accuser on the defencive and disallows them to control the tone of the debate. Especially if they go negative after Obama makes a policy answer.

    Imagine this.

    Rove ad: Barack Obama has connections to radical terrorist Willie Ayers.
    Counter ad: I'm Barack Obama and I renounce what Mr Ayers did. As your president I will meet with important people who may not be nice people. I will deal with them without compromising America's interests. John McCain accepted money from the Keating Five, people who cost taxpayers millions in the S&L scandal and was reprimanded for it. I accepted no money from Ayers and I will reprimand him right now by saying his views and actions are un-American.

    How do they counter that? Exactly. Rove's tactics are stupid.
    • McReynolds, on 04/21/2008, -5/+41"... Rove's tactics are stupid."
      The majority of American voters ain't smart either. That is what the tactics exploit.
      • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -4/+8I'll admit, a lot of my fellow countrymen piss me off and I sometimes lose faith in my country being able to pull out of this downward spiral. That said, I think the fact that men like Ron Paul and Barack Obama have been able to get people to have hope in a more honest and transparent way of governance is a big positive.

        I think it's the easy way to say they're unintelligent, but I think they're turning out to be pessimistic. Some of them are being converted to optimism while others are alienated by optimism and retreat further into their pessimism. It's not really a lack of intelligence as much as it's a lack of coping skills. It's funny, because it's a classic liberal/leftist thing to make excuses for people who can't help themselves, but the people who REALLY can't help themselves are the right-wingers spitting venom and frothing at Obama.

        I think the last 20 years of talk-radio snapping the scale back from left-wing media have broken it for some people. In 1990 they had a point about left-wing bias in media, but now they've become the thing they hate the most...the leaders of bias. But it's not a bias of ideology like the leftists. It's a bias of anger for anger's sake. I don't think they even know how to NOT be angry anymore...and guys like Sean Hannity are so angry he'll even turn on his own side like he did with Ron Paul. It's gotten out of control.

        So I think it's exploiting dysfunction at this point.
      • oldhick, on 04/21/2008, -3/+18You guys are fools if you think that's all Rove does... Negative campaign ads are but a small arrow in his quiver of political tricks. Further, Rove's tactics are stupid? He's probably one of the most successful campaign strategists in a long time. He has a long history of getting douche bag idiots elected to office and silencing his opposition.
        Yeah, a real stupid idiot... Evil probably, stupid he is not.
        • r00fus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2He's not a god. If you think of him as a hacker, his "skillz" (ie, exploits) are largely known and have defenses now.
          It's clear that in 2006, his old tricks didn't work... because tricks without (percieved) substance to back them up don't win elections.
          THe country is largely done with Republicans, and so unless the R's build up their candidate (which requires some degree of unity), they're going to lose.
          • oldhick, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11, never said he was a god, maybe the devil, but certainly not god. 2, the comparison to him as a hacker is a bit simplistic, but I like it. 3, he didn't campaign in 2006 (didn't help campaign rather). 4, define "largely done with Republicans". McCain is polling dead even with, or slightly higher than Obama.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7"The majority of American voters ain't smart either."
        Why so bitter?
        • crichton101, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3He's from Philly
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6Oh, he's one of those God and gun clingers.
        • ssn697, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3He is a Ron Paul supporter. They have to cling to the "everyone else is stupid" story to convince themselves it isn't them...
          • crichton101, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1That's not true, I thought everyone else was stupid long before I heard of Ron Paul.
            /sarcasm.... sort of
        • stonewaljacksn, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Have you not noticed how pretentious everyone on digg is when it comes to politics. They got the Emo foundation down: "The world is against me I'm the only one who understands me everyone else is so stupid and it makes me so sad that nobody gets me and I'm all alone surrounded by idiots and it sucks being so much smarter and more enlightened than everyone they just dont understand wheres my razor"
    • Spektr4, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5They are only stupid when the Democrat smacks them down. So far, our candidates haven't. I think Barack will be different. Look at how he smacks down everything Clinton throws at him.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1theyre not stupid at all. the entire point is that the initial ad has MUCH more of an impact than the followup, no matter how eloquent the response is. if you support barack, then of course you follow his response closely and love every second of it, but thats not how it works for people who arent his followers.
      its evil, and its brilliant, to get the first attack in.
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1How will they counter that? Sorry, it's too late. The O-man's Senate Campaign already accepted money from Ayers.
    • jbetancourt, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0"How do they counter that? Exactly. Rove's tactics are stupid."
      First of all your reply has too many words. The reading level of the majority is something like 8th grade and the attention span of a hamster. You can't read much in a bowling alley, especially after a few beers, and all those guns going off. Just joking.
      But, still, you can't fight against sound bites. Maybe only humor and time will erode their effect. Not much help in politics perhaps.
    • Thuktun, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Obama also uses a good approach when smacking down stupid "gotcha!" claims. He gently mocks the claim, getting you to laugh with him, explains clearly and rationally what's wrong with it, then points out that this kind of nonsense is what he's trying to get out of Washington. That combination is hard to argue against.
  • insomniac8400, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6It's called the internet.
  • chillypacman, on 04/21/2008, -16/+8I'm burrying all Raw Story, Kotaku, Ars and whatever else big ***** blog leaching off digg.
  • floor, on 04/21/2008, -24/+15He seems to be poised with an "I am a victim" campaign. The ABC debate proved that. His machine launched an immediate attack on ABC after they had the nerve to treat him with anything but kid gloves. Anybody who takes him off of his canned stump speeches will be savagely attacked. He looked awful on the ABC debate as he does anytime he can't talk off a teleprompter.

    What is "smear"? Obama likes to pretend he can eliminate partisan gridlock but there is no proof, rather there is strong evidence to the contrary. Is bringing up his limited voting record showing him a hard left winger considered "smear"? Is examining his inner circle of advisors, who would help shape policy, considered "smear"?

    Pointing out his weaknesses, flaws, contradictions and questionable rhetoric is not "swift boating". He can make all the vague, uplifting flowery speeches he wants, but somebody has to dig a little deeper and the main stream press doesn't seem to has the interest or the balls.
    • kurttrail, on 04/21/2008, -7/+13Dumbass, being a Liberal is no longer a bad thing in the eyes of Americans upset with the direction this country has gone under Conservative leadership.

      Conservatism has been proved wrong, thanks to Bush & his gang of thugs.
      • OMRebel, on 04/21/2008, -6/+5The problem with your logic is when you state that Bush is a Conservative. He's not a Conservative at all. He's more in line with what the Democratic party was in the early 80's.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/21/2008, -6/+7Uh-uh. No you don't. Democrats didn't elect Bush- YOU did (or, at least, your party did). Take some responsibility- everything that's gone wrong in the Bush administration is YOUR fault.
          It's not our fault you elected the wrong guy.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5How did the democrats vote on the Impeachment resolution again?

            Oh yeah that's right, they voted it off the table.

          • WasabiBomb, on 04/21/2008, -5/+6And now you hold Democrats responsible for not policing a Republican president?
            Do you guys take responsibility for anything?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+6I'm a Libertarian. And if you don't see how the opposition is supposed to vote in favor of impeaching a war criminal president that belongs to the opposite party, you need to take some special medication. That's less than taking responsibility, that's a demonstration of corruption.
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5On the one hand, we've got the party that put the President into near-total power, and who endorsed that President's every move as he took us into an unnecessary war.
            On the other hand, we've got the party that, until very recently, had almost no power at all- and who, even now, doesn't hold a clear majority.

            Who's MORE responsible?

            I'm not saying that the Democrats are blameless- however, I AM saying that, at least right now, they're the lesser of the two evils.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1There's no who's more responsible, there not even a they and them anymore.

            They all voted for the war, they all accepted the false evidence (except for Ron Paul and Kucinich, of course), they all voted to put impeachment of the table, they all approved funding the war and they all disapprove of an investigation to find just who is responsible for the false testimonies and false evidence that led to a crime against humanity and numerous crimes of war.

            Same for torture, same for the patriot act, same for everything.

            Democrats now equal republicans and vice-versa.
          • stonewaljacksn, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2this was officially the stupidest, most pointless bunch of comments I've read through. Are you seriously playing playground blame games with each other? As if it's not all of our faults.
        • merper, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3The Republican party is no longer conservative then.
      • floor, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Great response. Start with name calling and proceed with some random talking point that has nothing to do with my comment. And then you get dugg up???
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -8/+9Don't you see?

      He'll get American interest (lobbies) back in America by not dealing with lobbies (American interests).

      Then he'll cut taxes in order to better fund the education system and "create" (his exact words) more teachers.

      He'll lower healthcare costs by modernizing (as in purchasing the newest technologies) the US healthcare system which has absolutely no relation with the cost of a hospital visit, all while reducing taxes.

      And on top of that, he's going to create a new healthcare plan to insure all Americans that are not currently insured, while lowering taxes.

      But it's ok, if you can't afford the affordable healthcare, you'll be prosecuted:
      "Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage."

      And if ever there's a war, he'll just fly out into space and make the earth rotate in the opposite direction so he can go back in time to avoid it.
      • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2as opposed to hillary...who will require that everyone buy healthcare regardless of whether or not they have kids?

        you dont think it's irresponsible for parents to not have insurance for their kids? it's the single instance where his plan mandates coverage be purchased, and it would be highly subsidized for situations where families cant afford it.

        and as a whole, taxes will be going up. they need to, the country is in massive depth. he's just not putting the brunt of that on the middle-class, and instead he's returning the taxes for the wealthy to clinton-era levels.

        wtf is wrong is wrong with better funding the education system? better school, more money means more teachers. you phrase it like his trying to clone teachers in his lab, even though i know you know perfectly what he means.

        lobbyists arent american interest, they're corporate interest, constantly at odds with the interest of white/blue-collar workers. perhaps that you find corporate interests synonmous with american interest is where you've gone astray. consider what your life would be like if america was run by walmart.

        he's fully committed to protecting american interests worldwide. he would move back in if terrorists overthrew iraq and setup some kind of anti-american staging party. he's not naive, nor is he a pussy. but he will avoid war unless it's absolutely necessary. what's wrong with that?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2No as opposed to logic and common sense.

          I hate hillary. But that doesn't mean I'll put aside all intelligence to purposely believe a man who contradicts himself everytime he opens his mouth.

          Lowering taxes means less money.
          He talks about more money. Everything in his plan requires more money.

          He talks about putting the economy back on track by bringing back american interests to america. Except he refuses to deal with lobbies. Although I don't agree with the lobby system at all, it's still a reality. If you want to keep american interests, you need to pay. That's what businesses are about, money.

          And lobbies are American interests. Corporate Lobbies are YOUR companies trying to get favors from the government. When they don't get favors, they move to a place that is more profitable. And America is run by Wal-Mart.

          It is irresponsible to let your kids be uninsured. But I like my government small and vulnerable. I want it to be scared of me, not the other way around.

          "he's fully committed to protecting american interests worldwide"
          And then you talk about staying in IRaq.
          • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Lowering taxes means less money, unless you get it from other sources...like the wealthy. he is absolutely not gonna bring the total taxation for all american's to a net low, he's just shifting the burden up the chain. you also need to consider how much we stand to save in pulling out of iraq...that money alone would cover his education initiatives and provide much of the financial backing needed for his healthcare plan

            american is not run by walmart, yet. we dont ban unions and exile people who try to create them. we still value american manufacturing jobs and reasonable wages. we'll invariably be at odds with them on such issues. no corporate interest is in washington trying to push for higher taxes for themselves to help the economic situation of the middle class.

            corporate interests are about more money...for themselves. no corporation would push for a tax on outsourcing to keep jobs in america, but you bet your ass the working class would.

            im not talking about staying iraq. you presented a comment that suggested he would stick his fingers in his hears and say "lalala" if a nation threatened our livlihood, so i provided an example where he has shown clear committment to action, if needed, to protect america...even if that meant going back to iraq. if he didnt have the balls to be an effective commander-in-chief he would never do anything to suggest that we may eventually need to go back in if it become a terrorist staging point.

            you want the government to be scared of us. i'm sorry, but i find bush's america a much more fearful place than (bill) clinton's or obama's. you want the government to be scared of us, but dont mind playing the role of indentured servants to corporations who are built on the blood and sweat of american workers. you want to control your government, yet you have no qualms about letting corporate interests speak for you?

            corporate interests that are acceptable to the people, will be met by the people. we dont need corporate lobbyists making backdoor deals on our behalf. nor are we naive enough to think that those deals are being made on our behalf.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Are you aware that you lost 40% of the value of the American dollar in the last 5 years and that the mechanisms that caused this loss are not addressed by Obama, who wants to cut taxes?

            The wealthy work for corporations, no corporations, no wealthy.

            And since when does the government have other sources of income?

            And quit talking about my intentions. My intentions are the complete destruction of your government to start from scratch using the constitution, or more simply put: making America what it's supposed to be. The fact that I don't have a ridiculous *****-erotic admiration for a lying motivational speaker doesn't make me adopt the beliefs of any other clown that's opposed to him.

            And you are naive. You are incredibly naive. You're talking about the people who re-elected Bush, on purpose.
          • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1there's 3 realistic choices: obama, mccain, hillary

            you said you dont like hillary, you obviously dont like obama, so i assumed you were supporting mccain, whose term will be the mirror image of bush's. but you hate bush as well.

            so what are you arguing for?

            you want the complete destruction of the government, for us to start from scratch? and i'm naive? forgive me for assuming you were willing to make use of democracy for bringing about the changes you seek.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Lol democracy for change. I somehow fail to see how the lowest common denominator's opinion on things would serve a purpose.

            Don't ask my why I argue, you're the one who tried to refute what I said.
          • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1im just saying, seems like you're wasting your time nitpicking about the candidates when you have no intention of voting for anyone and no belief that the currently election will amount to anything.
    • MrErr, on 04/21/2008, -4/+6Actually given that the ABC debate was mostly Obama bashing, I would say he held up well under all that pressure. I do not think Bush or Clinton or McCain would have been able to do such a good job.
      • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2It wasn't Obama bashing, it just wasn't the dainty little puff questions he was used to. Stop throwing him softballs and he immediately cries foul.
        That's what YOU want in a president, eh?
    • Spektr4, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3I think the American voter is the real victim, when ***** like that ABC debate is presented to us as meaningful and important politican dialogue.
    • fluxion, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3there was no breaking news in that debate, and despite the fact that he had addressed all these questions to death beforehand, he still presented an adequate response to every dumbass question, so what if he was annoyed, he still played ball. abc got boo'd just like hillary did by her own crowd for bringing this crap up again. tough nuts

      i watched, and i have no idea where this "horrible performance" opinion is coming from. you guys are just throwing this kind of crap out there hoping that people who didnt see it will take your word for it.
    • momsshizzle, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2So true. Prepare to be dugg down by the sheep.
  • OMRebel, on 04/21/2008, -24/+6Hussein Obama certainly has Digg cornered. Anytime he wipes his rear, rest assured someone here will submit it, it'll receive a thousand votes, and everyone will be all giddy about how great that racist was able to clean his bottomside, while saving a school bus of children and getting a kitten out of a tree at the same time.
    • MrErr, on 04/21/2008, -5/+6I think conservative lies has got you cornered.
      • OMRebel, on 04/21/2008, -6/+5Thanks for such a vague response. What "lies" are you referring to? I've read Obama's books. His first book, and anyone with any brain cells that's actually read it cannot deny, contain many racist views by Obama. His second book was much toned down, but he wrote that after going into politics. In his first book, he had no intentions of doing so. Then, there's that racist church who gave a lifetime achievement award to a racist in Farrakhan, the "typical white person" comments, the comments by his wife, the comments by his preacher, etc... I could care less that I'm going to get dugg down, but everything I've said is 100% accurate.
        • neognostic, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3No about 10% accurate.
        • Sidzilla, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2First, as a white guy I don't feel guilty about being white. I can, however, tell that there is a distinct disadvantage in this country to being non white. I don't agree that only white people can be racist, but I do know that when a black man is racist it is usually after being subjected to racist remarks and actions their whole life. I would be surprised at any black person who wasn't pissed at the status quo and out to change it. Obama and some of the people he has associated with in the past are angry at how black people get treated in this country, and I say that isn't racist, that is being mildly observant on their part. Has he carried it too far? I don't know. What I do know is that under the current administration I have less money left over to spend, I am spending $50 a week on gas instead of $20, and I am not worrying about what big screen television to buy, I am worrying about affording shoes for my daughter to go to school in. The Republicans haven't gotten things under control, so it is indeed time for a change.
  • louiebaur, on 04/21/2008, -3/+6Yup there are plenty of "Swift-Boat" like attacks coming his way for sure
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1And all of them courtesy of the democrats primary. I am sure the republican party will send a thank-you note to Howard Dean. Yeeeeaaaaahhhh!
  • fleischner, on 04/21/2008, -10/+5The only thing that's making this presidential election tolerable is the in-fighting between the Left and the Far Left that make up the Dems these days. I'm certainly not pleased with who I have to vote for as a conservative, but it's almost worth it watching the fringe and even-more-fringe people tear apart the Democrat party. A true red-on-red firefight from where I stand.
    • Spektr4, on 04/21/2008, -3/+4There are no "far-left" politicians in America. Everyone is either right or center. Okay, that's a little exaggeration--there are your odd Kuciniches and Bernie Sanderses.

      I love how conservatives insist that a candidate who is in full support of capitalism, but wants some sensible regulation or the taxes to cover the deficit, is "far leftist". Where is your brain?
      • fleischner, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2So you're saying that the number one MOST liberal senator is center. Where's your brain?

        I look forward to seeing the world-class case of buyers' remorse when BHO gets his head handed to him in the general. Of course then I have to suffer through four years of President McCain, but we can't have everything we want.
    • RebeL5K, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1True red-on-red fight? I believe this is a blue-on-blue fight.
  • RRJackson, on 04/21/2008, -14/+7I guess he's already finished his anti-American machine.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 04/21/2008, -4/+8The only effective response to SWIFT Boat tactics is full disclosure - aka telling the truth. Kerry hid behind his military paperwork which lead reasonable people to question his honesty.

    As long as Obama has no skeletons (and there appear to be a a few but everyone got some) that directly contradict what his is saying and portraying, he won't have any problems.

    The idea that Kerry didn't have the "machinery" to respond to the Swifties is absurd. And the idea that Obama needs such machinery is a ruse.

    This article is meant to remind those who - incorrectly - see Kerry as blindsided of that perspective so that if something suspicious DOES come up about Obama, it can be deflected via this straw man tactic. (straw man or red herring? i forget which is which - lol).
    • br0ck, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1"The idea that Kerry didn't have the "machinery" to respond to the Swifties is absurd."

      Kerry himself disagrees with you: "Kerry told the crowd he did not think Obama would be victimized by GOP attacks the way he was in 2004 by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Kerry took responsibility for not fighting the Swift Boat assaults more effectively, but he said advisors, including Bill Clinton, suggested he not defend himself aggressively. "We didn't lose to them, I didn't lose to them, because we didn't answer it with the truth," Kerry said. "We did. We just didn't do it enough." He said his campaign did not put enough money behind a campaign to counter the Swift Boat ads. "We're not gonna get that close" to repeating the mistake, Kerry said. "We're just gonna come right back so hard and so fast." http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/20 ...
      • Treoinmypocket, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I hope this isn't evidence of your critical thinking skills.

        Kerry did NOT answer the SWIFTIES with truth. There was one, clear and definitive answer to their attack on his war record and specifically how he was awarded his medals (the crux of their entire argumant). That was for Kerry to authorize the Pentagon to release the paperwork that was filed for his medals.

        -1st Kerry said he had no authority to do that, that is was up to the Pentagon. The Pentagon's response was clear - they realease those records all the time. All that is required is the authorization of the soldier in question. In other words...KERRY.

        -2nd, Kerry after the Pentagon said he could authorize them to release the records, Kerry said "I should have to do that. My service stands for itself."

        Tanslation? If Kerry released the records it would have proved the Switfties case. The TRUTH is that Kerry did want the truth out.
  • chijim70, on 04/21/2008, -7/+3lol, swift boat... it's swift vote...
  • melfster, on 04/21/2008, -5/+10Why anybody would vote for McCain is beyond me. He is the biggest flip-floper there is. He is exactly like older Bush would be.
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -5/+2You ask why would anyone vote for McCain? Oh, probably because they don't want a Presidency made of

      Wiliam Ayers as his Secretary of Defense,
      Jeremiah Wright giving the morning prayer every day in Congress,
      Michelle Obama heading up the Department of Education, and
      Antoin “Tony” Rezko as the head of the Federal Reserve.
      • Thuktun, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Don't worry, Obama is not Bush and won't act like him.
    • chukd, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I am voting for McCain in the general because I don't want our government to be more socialized. There would be a big health care program with either Clinton or Obama. I don't believe their lies that the are going to "end" the war in Iraq. Their economic plans will kill American industry even more. You can't increase the capital gains tax without driving more jobs out of the country. McCain is far from perfect, no one running for any elected office is perfect. I am not happy with any of the choices but to me McCain is the best.
      • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1It's not just welfare health care that Obama / Clinton want. They want big government EVERYWHERE. Read Obama's website. The very few things he lists details for are all "make government bigger" / "De-privatize everything".
        DON'T listen to the media / blogs. Read up and make your own opinions.
        Do you really want to be forced to buy not only your own health care from the government, but also the next guy who is too "poor" to pay?
      • Thuktun, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2New rule:

        Anyone who voted for Bush twice no longer gets to complain about "big government".
        • MrQuoz, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Freaking idiots act like Bush isn't a conservative. *****. It's like christians who pretend their pastors aren't christian when they get caught doing meth with gay prostitutes.
  • OC73, on 04/21/2008, -13/+6Obama has already been swift boated. The Rev. Wright scandal hurt him with republican cross over voters and independents. His association with terrorist William Ayers will only damage him further.
    • Sidzilla, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2I don't think the Ayers thing will bother him as much as others think, since Hillary's husband pardoned a bunch of Ayers' cronies just before leaving office. Maybe in the general election McCain will try, but the Keating 5 comeback is hard to trump.
  • yellowsnowcone, on 04/21/2008, -7/+4finally, a candidate with some balls, unlike that French pussy Kerry
    • drfluffer, on 04/21/2008, -3/+4A liberal with balls? Must be photoshop.
  • 140Suffolk, on 04/21/2008, -15/+10The Swift Boaters were middle-aged military men who had served with Kerry. Kerry never refuted what they said. Actually he had to concede some of what they said. For example, Kerry had to admit that when he spoke repeatedly about how being in Cambodia was "seared in my memory" he was mistaken and he never was IN Cambodia. All he had to do was release his military records. Kerry refused, so we assumed that all or most of what the Swift Boaters said was factual.

    Same with Barack. Pointing out that his mentor is an America-hater is NOT untrue or unfair. And he hasn't defused that with his phony race-talk speech.
    And we DO think these issues are important. It shows what Obama really believes. As opposed to what he says to get votes.
    Obama likes to spend Sundays listening to anti-white anti-American slanderous accusations. He must like it or he wouldn't have kept going back for 20+ years. He wouldn't have just contributed $20,000+ dollars to Rev wright. And he wouldn't be bringing his daughters.
    We know that Obama has spoken at rallies in Kenya for his cousin Raila Odinga. The one who ran for president of Kenya. And when he lost in Sept he turned his minions loose to burn 1,000 Christians alive.
    Is that important enough for you? Which part of this is factually incorrect?

    And wait til it comes out what his position on reparations is!
    " After his election [to Senate], Obama [stated] he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004)."
    Get it? That means Barack is in favor of milking Americans for trillions in "reparations". Then giving the money to guys like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton to do "good works".
    • fleischner, on 04/21/2008, -6/+3Oh man. You're going to get hammered here. Because nothing is worse to the typical Digger than... the truth. That's why "swift-boated" has taken on a negative connotation even though it actually means a lot of reliable on-the-scene people who speak earnestly against a Dem candidate.
    • verifex, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3I fail to see how your comments add anything important to the discussion. It seems more likely that you are spouting off conservative talking points you found on Rush's website. Do you enjoy dirty politics so much that you would rather deceive the public then have a fair election between two candidates? I wish we had candidates like Barack from both political parties. I can only hope that McCain sees the value in "straight talk" with the American public instead of the ***** non-issues that you seem intent on pushing.

      I'm not even going to address anything in your comment because I think those non-issues are more important to you because you have already made up your mind who you want to be president. You are more interested in winning the 'pissing match' then making sure we have a good president; whoever that may be, McCain, Obama or someone else.
      • 140Suffolk, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1You think Barack being buddies for 20 years with white-hating rabble-rousers is a non-issue?
        You think his weasel words that show he's in favor of slavery reparations are a non-issue?
        OK. You're the one who's repeating talking points.
        We are interviewing applicants for leader of the free world. What kind of person he REALLY is matters a lot. And yes, I have already made up my mind that Obama, the semi-socialist empty suit who has never had a real job in his life should NEVER be president.
        I know. You're going to say he was a community organizer. Do you know what that is? It means getting non-producing people to demand stuff from producing people. Terrific.
        • verifex, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1That's the thing, as long as someone has convinced you that he is friends with a "white-hating rabble-rouser" the conversation doesn't matter. I read the interviews with the guy, and I've read about him. He isn't a "white-hating rabble-rouser", he simply had some comment taken out of context plastered all over the news so that people like you would have an emotional reaction. Which is exactly what happened and is EXACTLY the reason why they put it on the news, to get people like you to think like they want.

          Also, exactly which talking points was I repeating? I was simply stating that what I think you were doing is NOT constructive criticism.
      • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Ahh,verifex, a true Digg talking point only Liberal.
        Pointing out the truth and the candidates own admissions is "dirty politics".... unless the person you're pointing it out about has a (R) after his name.
        • verifex, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I don't listen to talking points; unlike your friend up there. He's reading off some website, or fox news, what he heard about Obama, and then coming here and repeating it as fact. I don't know what things are truth and what things are fabrications. But I do know enough not to take seriously someone who defends the "swift-boat" tactics from the previous election. He has an agenda to push, and I'm not going to accept it.

          Now tell me this, would you defend someone criticizing Obama without knowing whether or not the things they were saying were factual? Unless you are an idiot, which I'm guessing you aren't, you wouldn't defend someone without knowing whether or not what they were saying was factual first. Unfortunately, I'm guessing you are defending the guy up there because you yourself have already made up your mind about Obama and McCain, and therefore this whole conversation is pointless, you just wanna join in the fun of the internet and "jump on the bandwagon". Whether that bandwagon is conservative, or liberal.
    • tucsonwc, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Dear neocon retard. Your talking points are BS.
      1) The swift boat guys did NOT serve with Kerry on his boat. They were in the service at the same time he was and did not like what he said about the military at the time. Big difference.
      2) Kerry made a mistake not hammering those guys down and showing them to be fronts for the neocons--just like you.
      3) Jeremiah Wright isn't running for President, Obama is. Why aren't you excoriating what falwell and the ultra right wing fundies said after 9/11 and Katrina? Will you say that since Bush was going to their universities putting their people in his administration, he agreed with everything they said?
      4) McCain has been to the institutions of the same fundie whack jobs that Bush went to for votes. Why aren't you holding him to the same standards you wish to pillory Obama with?
      5) Slavery existed in the USA from 1619 to 1865. Blacks did not get civil rights until 1965. In other words, bigotry, slavery and all the evil of it, predated the founding of the USA and continued for a long time. The effects of it are still seen here in this country. This didn't take place someplace else. It happened here. And the after effects are such that Karl Rove felt free to let his operatives in 2000 say that McCain had an illegitimate "black baby" in the south carolina primaries to try and take him out so George Bush could win. You right wing fear mongers are always ready to trot out a Willie Horton to try and frighten US citizens while you loot this country.

      You should be ashamed of yourselves. You've allowed this great country to be looted by corporate thugs who are lining their pockets with the treasury of this country and selling the debt to China and Japan. Have you no shame?
      • 140Suffolk, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11- You're right that most, if not all, of the Swiftboaters were not with Kerry on his boat.
        2- If he could have "hammered those guys down" he would have. If I recall, all he had to do to refute some important point was to release his military records. Then he claimed he didn't have the authority. But that was untrue.
        3- The fact is, Kerry was a big pusher of the Winter Soldier campaign. And after it was all over and Americans were convinced that their soldiers were a bunch of monsters it turned out that all the testimony was false. And that the simplest checks would have uncovered that none of the testifiers were either serving in other parts of the world, or other parts of the country. Or were not even in the military when the atrocities they claimed to have witnessed took place.
        4- The fact is, in a logical world Kerry would have been tried for treason for secretly meeting with the enemy during wartime. You recall, of course, that he secretly met with N Vietnam officials in France.
        5- The right wing fundies you refer to were not "mentors" of Bush. Likewise McCain.
        6- The effects are NOT still seen in this country. Tell me anyplace in the world or in human history that was better for black people that the USA right now. And please don't tell me about ancient civilizations in Africa. Those may have been great for the king and his family. But everyone else were slaves. Hell, those were the empires that sold black slaves to the Arabs and the Europeans. But let me ask you, are YOU in favor of slavery reparations? I am not. Are you?

        I'm betting you're a fan of Howard Zinn. And Chom Noamsky.
        • verifex, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1 Your talking points are crap, and now look, you are just trying to paint everyone who doesn't believe what you are saying to be liberal. You are trolling, get outta here.
  • 140Suffolk, on 04/21/2008, -7/+4"... Rove will try to hijack Obama's slogan "Change We Can Believe In" and brand it as "revolutionary change, change driven by an alien ideology..."
    One slogan of the National Socialist Party was "Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!".
    Now, is it me, or does that sound a lot like "Change!"
    {In case anyone doesn't know, the National Socialist Party is the real name for....the Nazi Party}
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2all vague, uplifting slogans like that are perfect rallying cries for...BLIND MASS MOVEMENTS.
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -6/+2Obama's idea of change:

      Sheeple: So Obama what do you bring do this presidency
      Obama: Change
      Sheeple: Can you elaborate?
      Obama: Change
      Sheeple: Yes, yes, we know you want change but what kind of change?
      Obama: The kind of change you can believe in.
      Sheeple: What change?
      Obama: Believe in the change!
      Sheeple: I'm sorry I just don't understand what change you bring that some other candidate can't offer.
      Obama: This debate is becoming another "distraction".
      • verifex, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3You are ridiculous. We've already witness the kind of change he stands for. He's running his candidacy without having to resort to slanderous lies to get peoples attention. I really doubt McCain has anything up his sleeve different from Bush's election machine. I've already seen McCain change how he carries himself ever since he became a serious candidate for President, and I don't like how he's become so cozy with the far-right ideologues in Washington and everywhere else.

        I can't wait to see a debate between McCain and Obama. How about you?
        • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Please provide evidence of a McCain slanderous lie.
          • verifex, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I was referring to Hilary's politics when I said that part, not McCain's. The Republican-Democrat political war hasn't really started yet, so we have no idea what kind of things the Republicans will say about whoever the democratic nominee is.
    • BigDawgTE, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2You guys are so pathetic. You are actually inventing imaginary arguments that end in failure for Obama. That is called, "fantasizing." Most adults reserve such behaviour as a sexual expression. Its not even that much fun, let me try:
      McCain: Since I got "Roved" in 2007, I am now like an older clone of Shrub - only maybe not retarded.
      Hmm.... actually, that is pretty fun - if you have a real imagination or sense of humor.
  • gthrank, on 04/21/2008, -2/+6Today the Financial Times endorsed Obama. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c88b7c-0f00-11dd-9646- ...
  • JointVenture, on 04/21/2008, -5/+4So now you guys are turning on Kerry too?

    Is that because Kerry asked McCain to be his running mate?
  • shiftclick, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5I think something is wrong with this spam. Did anyone see if the can had a hole or crack in it before it was opened? Buried as spam.
  • techweenie1, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Good to see we're staying on topic here at ObamaCanUDiggIt.com...
  • londubh, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7The swiftboating has only just begun. It's going to get a lot uglier, but if anyone can defeat them it will be Obama.
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3The person who will defeat Obama will be himself with his disastrous comments whenever he is off the teleprompter.
      • BigDawgTE, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!! You wish!
      • verifex, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Obama can at least put together a pretty decent speech without PR guys injecting themselves into each and every word. Let's see McCain do that.
  • Sidzilla, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7Obama, Clinton, and McCain all have baggage from the past. Finding an honest politician is like finding Bigfoot. Lots of people believe they exist, but no one has caught one yet.
  • novenator, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Speaking of swiftboating, look at some of the crackpot right wing comments about this article! Get a life you neocon morons.
    • DavidS9, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Why is everyone with a different view point from you a "neocon moron".
  • Soyea, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Ok this guy isn't perfect. he does have some shady things in his past., and yea I voted for him, but people need to think before they start screaming that this guy is the next second coming, the fact is he really hasn't done much.and I'm not so sure I ready to give away whats left of this nation after clinton/bush years,.
    • tucsonwc, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1So instead you should hand over the rest of it to McBush, who wants to follow in the footsteps of Cheney and the kleptocracy that is bleeding this country dry? I hope not.
  • mattowan, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Hezbamas will not let a little thing like fact get in the way of his Wizard of Oz type campaign.
    • skrowl, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Dugg for "Hezbamas". Too bad most Diggers won't get it.
    • tucsonwc, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Sure we get it. It means you are trying to tie Obama to Hezbollah and or Hamas. You forgot to use his middle name too! Yeah he must be a muslim terrist. I guess he isn't like your heroes Cheney and Bush eh? They've done such good for the average citizen of this country. IF you consider corporations and multimillionaires average.
      • mattowan, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Genius, it's not that he's a terrorist. It's that he is by far the most sympathetic to the terrorists "plight" of the candidates. He is also most likely to put our national security (and Israel's for that matter) in the hands of the UN. The same body that constantly speaks out against Israel and never against nations friendly to Islamic extremism. He has already stated he is ready to sit down and talk to our enemies. Is there any doubt that would lead to appeasement and dhimmitude? None.
  • DavidS9, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1When will people understand that any swift boat ads will be based on Obama's actual documented and videoed evidence. I mean if Clinton wasn't such a screwed up candidate herself she would have buried Obama months ago and you all know it . . So stop trying to fool yourselves into thinking other wise.

    When Obama comes into the light of a true election no amount of prep work will be able to save him from himself and his family and friends. Hell half the things he's denied doing are in his books where he stated he believed in them and tells how the influenced his life
    • tucsonwc, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Really. So all of Karl Rove's PAC work was based off truth?
      So you are saying there was a conspiracy within the military to give John Kerry a medal?
      So you are saying that the reports by his men and superior officers in Viet Nam were lies?
      I think sir you are prevaricating.
      • DavidS9, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0I was talking about Obama not Kerry. Kerry deserved everything he got out of those ads. As a Vet that has spent afew years in a combat zone I don't think there is any justification for what he did to his buddies.

        And as for Obama just compare what hes said lately to what he has written in his books and see if there are any inconsistencies.
  • Codee, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Bring it on then. We aren't backing down, no way. Bring it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.