http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
"There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens."
Same story. Different candidate.
IOKIYAAR. Again. They even get 'some say' right in the title. The Tribune is always a quality read. :)
First of all, this story is really, really old. We've been through this publicly a long time ago.
Second, your subject line: "I'll do anything to win" is not the sort of phrase that one normally associatiates with requirements that candidates, including one's opponents, follow the law. In fact, exactly the opposite. There is nothing even remotely wrong or unseemly, let alone counter to Obama's message, in pointing out obvious and egregious errors in the paperwork of political opponents. It's not underhanded or unethical, and it's not the type of personal politics of destruction and distraction that Obama is running against and has so eloquently attacked.
No contradictions here by Obama, just straw men and business as usual from his detractors.
"It's not underhanded or unethical, and it's not the type of personal politics of destruction and distraction that Obama is running against and has so eloquently attacked."
I think it may come off as underhanded to folks who've never witnessed some of the great ballot petition fights in Illinois, which are par for the course here, but it's not particularly damning because it could just as easily come off as irrelevant. I'm kind of surprised that the Clinton's haven't dredged this up more often with Michigan and Florida statements... but perhaps their trench fighting days would reveal the same tactics, not that they haven't opened themselves up to criticism with their attacks before.
And of course I hardly find Obama to be above the fray when it comes to his campaigning. Compared to Clinton though, he comes off as a saint. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Another useless attack on a candidate. Instead of an attack on someone you don't like, why not tell us something someone you do like has done or said that is positive?
"Another useless attack on a candidate. Instead of an attack on someone you don't like, why not tell us something someone you do like has done or said that is positive?"
They can't. They back Republicans. About all they could offer is: "Well, last year we weren't as bad as we were two years ago!"
"I think it may come off as underhanded to folks who've never witnessed some of the great ballot petition fights in Illinois, which are par for the course here, but it's not particularly damning because it could just as easily come off as irrelevant."
It also strikes me as particularly ironic, since the article makes clear that some of his opponents' volunteers may very well have been deliberately committing acts of apparent fraud, and Obama's alleged sin was to shine a light and call them on it. In other words, although the petition objections were obviously in the self interest of his campaign, even then he was indirectly challenging the corrupt tactics and practices of politics as usual.
Oh, there are plenty of things you can say that are good about McCain. He's pro-family, for instance -- presuming that you redefine pro-family to "walking out on your wife -- the wife who stayed faithful to you throughout your POW experience -- just because there's a hot, rich 25-year-old you've been having an affair with."
That'll go over *real* well with independents, don't you think?
"Par for the course"
I couldn't have said it better myself. We're talking about a guy with limited political history with a brand that he's going to bring us together, show us change we can believe in, etc. etc.
Oh, there are plenty of things you can say that are good about McCain. He's pro-family, for instance -- presuming that you redefine pro-family to "walking out on your wife -- the wife who stayed faithful to you throughout your POW experience -- just because there's a hot, rich 25-year-old you've been having an affair with."
To all those who have bought into the walk-on-water-Obama, At least be realistic and honest enough to admit that all sides are/will get hit with dirty comments until the election. To say Obama's campaign and his faithful won't use this and every other personal attack is absurd.
Wait and see.
Well, Obama probably won't use the "McCain fathered a mulatto love child" rumor that Bush used.
Although it would turn into some awesome Star Wars references, and anything that ended with McCain tossing Rove into a chasm, well, interpret it how you wish!
I don't think Obama can "walk on water." But unless you can find anything in Obama's past as groaningly tawdry as the circumstances of McCain's cradle-robbing affair, one even his ex-wife blamed not on Vietnam but McCain's mid-life crisis leading to a zipper problem, then by all means lay it on the table. So to speak.
I've been writing the McCain campaign to get him a fully functional Darth Vader suit to help seal the deal, but they just won't listen to reason. "He's more political machine than man now..."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
McCain was already separated from his wife when he met Cindy. Was SnObama off the smack before he met Michelle? He sold it in school, did he ever sell it to her?
McCain was already separated from his wife when he met Cindy.
Nope.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFDF1439F934A15751C0A9669C8B63
"why not tell us something someone you do like has done or said that is positive"
When given a chance to leave captivity because of who his father was, McCain declined.
I can sense that this is going to be a long and very positive campaign for the White House.
I can sense that this is going to be a long and very positive campaign for the White House.
The difference between the "McCain having an affair and then dumping his wife and children for the sweet young thing in question" -- also known as "McCain does a Giuliani" -- and the claim that Obama sold drugs is that the former is documented, while the latter turned out to be the empty speculation of a Clinton co-chair in New Hampshire named Shaheen who had to step down because of it and for whom Hillary personally apologized to Obama face to face.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3992371&page=1
If somebody has actual evidence that Obama sold drugs, lay it on the table. That would be quite a scoop for IP.
While I'm at it, I suppose I should also ask for your evidence that he used heroin. Consider your bluff called. Be a hero. Lay the evidence down.
This thread, summarized, without the handful of reasonable responses:
I'm so excited for this campaign that I hardly know what to say.
And McCain is an adulterer! Obama's a drug-dealer! I'm so excited for this campaign that I hardly know what to say.
Here's what to say: "People, if you're going to make these kinds of attacks, take the time to document your claims."
No candidate has some mystical right to go through the campaign without getting attacked. But not all attacks are morally equal. There's a huge difference between reminding the voters that McCain had an affair that led to the end of his marriage -- something even McCain says is true -- and pulling crap out of thin air about Obama having supposedly been a drug dealer.
"There's a huge difference between reminding the voters that McCain had an affair that led to the end of his marriage -- something even McCain says is true -- and pulling crap out of thin air about Obama having supposedly been a drug dealer."
There's a similarly large difference between questioning Obama's current campaign rhetoric in light of his previous actions as a candidate, and McCain's marital history. Yet that's the response that was given.
I can feel our politics changing already.
Well, the truth will set us free!
I haven't seen any evidence that McCain had an affair nor heard any admission. Can "Anonymous" please provide documentation detailing McCain's martital timeline in regards to when he met Cindy...besides a Daily Kooks post?
I see from the link provided that Obama admitted to pot and coke (that's blow, right?) in his book. Has he been asked if he ever sold or distributed for free those drugs to anyone else?
I haven't seen any evidence that McCain had an affair nor heard any admission.
Then you haven't read McCain's book. Here's an excerpt quoted by an Arizona paper:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html
Can "Anonymous" please provide documentation detailing McCain's martital timeline in regards to when he met Cindy...besides a Daily Kooks post?
See the link I provided to a 2000 story in the New York Times, from which I quoted.
Thanks for asking.
Huh. I don't see anything about an affair in the quote. Can you point to the sentence with your alleged "admission" of an affair? Its a shame that the marriage ended, but at least he was straight about who was responsible. It must be shocking to Democrats after living through the Clintons.
As to the timing of his separations and his meeting Cindy, there seem to be sources contradicting the NYT article. Imagine that.
Thanks for the reply.