However, if enough American voters support a candidate, it makes it awfully hard to steal an election, doesn't it?
Just ponder this as you read the post:
"The irony, of course, is that these attacks, whether from Clinton, Bush, or McCain, aren't really cheap: They're legitimate differences of opinion with Obama's own stated policies."
I don't know how different they ultimately will be; however, how ironic that Hitlery sides with Bush/McCain, huh, readers?
Next thing you know she will be citing Karl Rove's political acumen!
Yes, how "ironic" indeed!!!!
You still out there, shit-head DemocraPs?
"Obama makes case for diplomacy, loud and clear"
"by Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff | May 20, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama may still be proposing policies that strike conservatives as weak and foolish.
Yeah, like Iraq is a shining success.
But after his aggressive response to President Bush's apparent criticisms of his foreign policies last week, it's clear that he's doing so in a forceful and politically savvy way.
Obama's approach to foreign policy - which emphasizes negotiations more than threats of military action - first emerged as a campaign issue last summer, when Hillary Clinton was looking to show off her expertise and make Obama look like a neophyte.
The initial attack wave, carried out by the parasites of the Democratic party.
She tore into him for appearing to rule out a nuclear response against Pakistan, should it be taken over by radical Islamists who also seize control of its nuclear weapons. Obama didn't back down, but the dispute devolved into dueling interpretations of a few ambiguous statements in an Obama interview with the Associated Press.
I'd really like to see all the candidates take a "no-nuke use" pledge no matter what. How is letting one of those things off going to help anyone, no matter what the situation?
The world has moved beyond these mass-murdering devices, and anyone who uses them will exceed all the tyrants and murderers throughout history.
Perhaps sensing an advantage, Clinton pounced on another of Obama's pronouncements: his promise to talk to the leaders of enemy nations. She called it "naive and irresponsible."
Unlike those who voted for Bush's invasion, right, Hitl?
This time, he shot back: "Strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries," Obama said at an Aug. 19 debate. "We shouldn't be afraid to do so. We've tried the other way. It didn't work."
Not only did Obama not flinch, but he turned the dispute into a staple of his stump speech, suggesting that Clinton shared Bush's reluctance to meet with leaders of hostile nations.
Yeah, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKED IT!!!
No wonder the Zionist-controlled MSM has attacked him ever since!!!
So when Bush himself, during a visit to Israel last week, compared the notion of talking to countries that support terrorism to England's failed appeasement of Nazi Germany, Obama wasn't going to give in.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," he said.
When John McCain chimed in that Obama needed to explain his willingness to talk to dictators, Obama declared that "I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple of days."
Speaking in front of a livestock barn in South Dakota, Obama even suggested that it was McCain, not he, who was acting naive.
The presumptive Republican nominee, Obama said, has a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support of terrorism."
Whether Obama is right or not, such demonstrations of backbone serve to validate many of the key assumptions of his campaign: that by strongly advocating for Democratic positions, a candidate can win a more meaningful mandate for change; that Clinton has compromised her principles to inoculate herself against Republican attacks; and especially that Obama alone can transcend the thrust-and-parry approach to politicking that has dominated recent presidential campaigns.
Noooooooo! A politician comprising their principles for power?
Where she'd learn that, her philandering hubby?
The irony, of course, is that these attacks, whether from Clinton, Bush, or McCain, aren't really cheap: They're legitimate differences of opinion with Obama's own stated policies.
One can only hope there are differences at this point -- unless y'all wanna vote in Ron Paul come November!
But Obama's ability to deflect his opponents' best shots - not by disputing them, or firing back with a charge of his own, but by standing up firmly for his position - will be the most important measure of his future success.
Why does the black man have to work twice as hard?
McCain and the lying war criminals of the White House get a pass, but the black dude has to stand up to see if he measures up?
Sigh!!!!
Assuming that Obama goes on to win the Democratic nomination, his most politically vulnerable point of differentiation with McCain will be on foreign policy. It's the one area where McCain's age - and Obama's - could play to the Republican's advantage.
Why?
It's also an obvious point of concern for voters concerned that another terrorist attack could happen at any time.
Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
You scared of another FALSE-FLAG INSIDE JOB, 'murkns!
Could happen AT ANY TIME!!!!! Booga-booga!!!!!!!!
Especially with bin-laden crooning out tapes from his grave like Stephen King pumps out books.
Obama is trying to argue for a kind of muscular liberalism - that by being more open to the world, and more credible as a negotiating partner, the United States can achieve greater safety and security.
It's an inherently tough argument to sell. Voters draw comfort from the idea that military strength can guarantee safety; they can't be too eager to have Obama disabuse them of the notion.
Yeah, voters take that impression away thanks to a shit media -- even though the impression is WRONG!!!!!!
And how about the backhand to the American public and Obama, huh, readers?
Sort of spoils an otherwise halfway-decent article.
Canellos couldn't help himself, could he?
But in arguing his case for quiet diplomacy, Obama seems to be having his best success when he makes it loudly and strongly."
Yeah, because the American public is ANTIWAR -- while the government and MSM is rabidly for it!!!
That is why this man's appeal is so vast!!!!
