Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama's macaca moment
It was bound to happen, given the time, Obama was going to show his true color. Thus far, the media has given him a pass every time he had a gaffe. Little is known about him and being new on the block, the media or the GOP hasn't quite branded him and the media is at a lost of a story line his gaffes will fit in.
If only the media would take a closer look, there's enough data out there on Obama that make a pattern, and thus, a story line obviously presents itself. For example, he has many times lied about his bio, lied about having heard Wright anti-american rants, claimed legislative credit that belonged to others, initially covered up his meeting with the Canadians on NAFTA by lying it took place, blamed his staff for his own misguided actions, etc. It's a definite pattern of lies and obfuscation. So media, what are you waiting for?
Another pattern is his beliefs and values he shares with his wife about how mean and bad this country is. Up to now, the media hasn't pressed Obama that part of Wright's speech he disagree with, thereby, which ones he agree with.
Obama can only be a party liability in the general election and Democrats need to think this through. There's more we don't know about Obama that could hurt the party in November.
Comments (7)
Have a party about it, we'll have an inauguration ball.
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp
April 12, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the things you say have validity to them.
But to say the media or the GOP or Fox or McCain or the Clinton campaign has yet to try and "brand" Obama is hardly the case.
Unfounded accusations that he was a cocaine dealer, a terrorist, attended a madrassa and is a Muslim, is a black racist, a segregationalist, a plagiarist, an anti-semite, naive, a dreamer, and now, an elitist, are only a few examples of attempts at "branding" him.
Heck, he's been called every hate name in the book.
I wouldn't have heard any of this if the media didn't cover it.
Hillary is trying to define herself by attacking someone else.
This is why people are still scratching their heads trying to figure out who Hillary Clinton really is. Independent of Bill.
I don't know how this will turn out but if her campaign fails, I think it's because they failed to define Hillary's character.
April 12, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you enumerated are a bunch of name calling and hard to recall by the average voter once they have been filed away as old news.
What I was referring to are gaffes and behaviors that fit a story line and that helps define a person. I brought out the lies and obfuscation by Obama. If one is able to see the pattern given his short public service, it has to be a concern what else may be there.
Take one of the name-calling you brought up -- plagiarist. If other behaviors of him run along this same line, a pattern can be established that he's a plagiarist which makes him a FAKE.
If you examine his speeches vs. what he has acted on, one can conclude he's a fake. He's a fake enough to even plagiarize. Just an example, he exhorted us to address hate and racism in his speech but did nothing in the 20 years he was presented it and to act upon it in his church. Again talk and no action -- a fake.
He could have given his speech on race at anytime, Wright or no Wright. The timing of his delivery is nothing short of political opportunism. And that's another pattern the media can easily develop on Obama -- a political opportunist to advance his own self-interest.
The media used the story line of dishonesty in bringing up Hillary's embellishment, braggadocio, exaggeration on Bosnia. The media has yet to do the same on Obama.
April 13, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome troll.
Off topic:
Mark Penn works for both McCain and Clinton?
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/4/12/182217/466/?pid=60#c115
April 12, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bitter, Yotin?
April 12, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, What does "Macaca Moment" mean?
Did Obama pick out someone from the audience to ridicule in front of a bunch of like-minded Progressives? What name did he call him/her? Did it happen? No. Not a Macaca Moment.
Or, do you mean that Barack Obama made an insensitive, ridiculing remark against a person (of color who happened to be a citizen) who was reporting on the event? No, not a Macaca Moment.
No, it may be your fervent wish that when Obama speaks the truth he will be a victim of the noise machine -- you can keep searching; You may just end up having YOUR Macaca moment. The Republican party has learned its lessons well -- do you want to be one of them?
April 12, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Sen. Allen denigrated that student as macaca, it was directed not at the person but to the entire group he represented. Allen's true color came out in the way he looked at this group of people. That gaffe has since been termed macaca moment.
When Obama denigrated and condescended on people in small towns in PA, he did it to all of the people in all small towns in America. He didn't call them macaca. Instead he called them religious fanatics, bitter losers, xenophobic and gun-toting underachievers. The gaffe is a macaca moment.
It may be true that people who lost their jobs are bitter about it, but it's not a fact that they go to church or hunt with their guns because they're bitter. They have been going to church since they were born and hunting before they could drive a car.
April 13, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment