You know, this video and the content of other Palin stump speeches makes me ponder something. For a candidate who is complaining about the darn media filter, she hasn't really talked about how she would run the country. Instead, her speeches and her answers revert all back to criticizing the opposition. That is nice, and indeed in any debate-setting we would expect criticisms to be exchanged. But when you criticize an idea while not providing one to replace your opponents, now you are simply patronizing for the sake of partisanship. Voters are not ignorant to candidates that come to the table emptyhanded.
Now, onto what she actually says in the video. She mentions a New York Times article, so I will presume she means the one I had linked to previously explaining the relationship between Obama and Ayers. She says that we are learning that Obama was not aware of Ayers' background. I want to know where the article states this, because I see the following passages:
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people
who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with
Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr.
Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers,
whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I
was 8.”
She then claims Barack launched his political career in Ayers' living room, which seems to be the mantra on the conservative blog circuit. But the mantra is failing to recognize the context of such coffee calls. As we see in the very NYT article I cited, the meeting wasn't meant to plan strategy but as a social gathering of Democrats. Oh, I know; to the kool-ade drinkers and tin-foil hat bearers that is all they need to hear and think "conspiracy! guilt! terrorist!":
It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their
town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J.
Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few
Democratic friends as her chosen successor.
Now she vomits a list of grub to feed to her base, including
- Lieng about Obama's tax plan (again...and again...and again...)
- Misrepresenting Obama's words on military policy in Afghanistan.
The Obama campaign swung into action immediately. By the time the Sunday news shows were taping, Democratic surrogates were hitting McCain with opposition research on his associations with extremist, racist groups (Begala) and the Keating Five (Emanuel).
Today, of course, camp Obama is pushing a new Keating Economics website, which begins streaming a documentary about McCain’s Keating problem at noon.
Obama’s campaign has never pushed the Keating button before, so this attack carries an original punch–and is clearly salient given the current financial crisis. Because the scandal involved McCain’s actions in public service, it is more likely to arise during the remaining two debates.
McCain’s dredging up of Bill Ayers, in contrast, is not only old news but has no link to anything Obama has done in public life. Patrick Ruffini, a Republican operative who worked on Bush’s reelection campaign, said today that McCain’s Ayers attacks are so old that airing them now “appears desperate.”
The economy is a sore subject, and it is what is contributing much to the soring poll numbers for Obama. People simply believe that Obama has a better grasp on how to handle the economy than McCain and company. The Keating Five association is going to hurt McCain badly, especially since he admits guilt in his own memoirs. The trailer from the site follows:
There is a Biblical parable about how people in glass houses should not throw stones. I think in this case, the mentioned parable is an understatement. People in a house of cards shouldn't speak, because simply their voice makes their house come tumbling down.
No comments:
Post a Comment