I wonder if the BBC intentionally encapsulated the Barry campaign in two paragraphs
US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has attacked John McCain’s links to a 1980s financial scandal.
He also accused his Republican rival of being more focused on running a smear campaign than on fixing the US economy.
So, go and attack McCain over something he was exonerated over, then complain that McCain is attacking him. Barry’s skin is so thin that if you prick him, you will probably be touching bone marrow. And that accusation of running a smear camp isn’t just something Barry has done in the past: it occured again Sunday
One day after John McCain’s running mate escalated the vitriol of the presidential campaign by invoking a 1960s radical, Barack Obama accused Republicans of trying to distract voters from the sagging economy with “smears”
Speaking to thousands of voters Sunday afternoon at Asheville High School, the Democratic nominee argued that McCain shares President Bush’s economic philosophy.
“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance,” Obama said. “They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas and running out of time.”
And as part of the same speech given by Mr. Teleprompter
I want you to know that I’m going to keep on talking about the issues that matter – about the economy and health care and education and energy. I’m going to keep on standing up for hard working families. We’re not going to let John McCain distract us from what we need to do to move this country forward.
Issues like character, leadership, and judgement apparently no longer matter to Obama, at least not when they should his complete lack of any of those three.
The points about judgment and character (I think) are very important. If Obama shows poor judgment in who he is paling around with now (i.e. Bill Ayers and the Good Reverend Wright), what kind of judgment can I expect him to use when it comes to dealing with a clown like Ahmadinejad?
The left loves to point out Cheney’s ties to people at Halliburton, so why should they be opposed to pointing out Obama’s association with people of questionable character? For example, if he had a tie, however small, to someone like John Gotti, what would the reaction be?