Boo Hoo Barry is crying about what's being said about his positions

[Kramer]

I lifted from this thread exactly what it reported about Obama's comments on Palin and the Bridge:

<<Obama also mocked the new TV ad put out by the McCain campaign claiming that Gov. Sarah Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."

<<"I gotta admit these folks are shameless," Obama said, "because the record is indisputable," he said, describing how Palin had originally supported the project.

<<"I wouldn’t do that," Obama said. "I mean, I'm not perfect --"

<<"Yes, you are!" shouted a woman in the crowd.

<<"No, no, no, no," Obama said. "Talk to Michelle, she’ll tell you. But what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to describe in an ad that I did something that is opposite of what I did.">>

Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere, then reversed course when it became national news and an object of public ridicule.&nbsp; She misrepresented her position as having "stopped" the bridge without even mentioning that she originally suppported it, and quit only after adverse national publicity about it.&nbsp; That was misleading, trying to portray her as a fearless crusader when in fact she was participating in the boondoggle till it became a public embarrassment.

Obama quite properly excoriated her for - - not lying, according to the quote here, he never used that word - -for doing the opposite of what she claimed she did.

Perhaps you should read the link i posted.

. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it.

Because then you would have seen this:

Paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party - Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee
2602 Fairbanks Street | Anchorage, AK 99503-2428
Tel (907) 258-3050 | Fax (907) 258-1626 | adp@alaska.net | www.alaskademocrats.org

His own party in Alaska says Palin killed the bridge.

got him with a rope-a-dope

[BT]

http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9320482p-9235189c.html

[Michael Tee]

I read the link you posted and nowhere is Palin's original support for the project even mentioned.

[sirs]

His own party in Alaska says Palin killed the bridge.

I heard that today too.   Priceless

[BT]

I read the link you posted and nowhere is Palin's original support for the project even mentioned.

So. Obama said she didn't kill the bridge. She did.

[BT]

The other day i read where Obama said he wouldn't be bullied. So what does he do but go after the second seat on the ticket.

One would think he is running against Palin.

Barack needs to refocus.

[Michael Tee]

<<The other day i read where Obama said he wouldn't be bullied. So what does he do but go after the second seat on the ticket.>>

Yep.

<<One would think he is running against Palin.>>

Yep.

<<Barack needs to refocus. >>

And yep. 

Read today's Hufpo and the excerpt from it I posted under the thread "Palin's Real Function in this Election."  You are 100% right.

[sirs]

Again, you're problem Tee, is that McCain's so called flip flops came before he was chosen as the GOP candidate.  In otherwords, his changing of positions occured prior, and have had no real impact on him becoming the GOP nominee to current.  If Obama were to be running then, on what he's running on now, Hillary would be the Democrat candidate.  In otherwords, his pandering is so transparent, he's taking a nosedive in the polls

[Michael Tee]

<<Again, you're problem Tee, is that McCain's so called flip flops came before he was chosen as the GOP candidate.  In otherwords, his changing of positions occured prior, and have had no real impact on him becoming the GOP nominee to current.  >>

But sir, may I suggest to you that a flip-flop is still a flip-flop whether it occurs before or after one is chosen as one's party's candidate.  It might be considered naive in some circles if one were to believe that at the time of Senator McCain's latest flip-flops, that he was not positioning himself for a run at the Presidency.

<<If Obama were to be running then, on what he's running on now, Hillary would be the Democrat candidate.>>

Sadly true.  But the fact remains, IMHO, that the people want change, and he is in a much better position than Hillary to promise believable change.  So one should consider what type of candidate the Democrats need to field against any Republican - - an otherwordly saint, true to his highest principles and guaranteed to lose, or a street-smart guy from the streets of Chicago, who knows what he has to say to beat the Party's favourite sons and daughters to cinch the nomination, and to the general electorate to win the Presidential election. 

<<In otherwords, his pandering is so transparent, he's taking a nosedive in the polls>>

IMHO, his pandering has pissed off a lot of his base (myself included, except I'm a non-voting part of it) but may have gathered in some of the independents and moderates that would otherwise have been lost to him had he stayed true to his original message.  As election day draws nearer, is it not possible that some of the pissed-off base, remembering why they were attracted to Obama in the first place, will realize the sheer awfulness of what they were against when they first came to Obama and also realize that whatever problems they have with Obama's pandering will be as nothing compared to the problems that they will have with a McCain-Palin ticket in office, especially if or when McCain is called to his just rewards and The Barracuda takes over?

[sirs]

And may I suggest a "flip flop" performed when it largely means nothing, and has presious little effect on them politically, is merely a change in one's mind & position, once more factors have been taken into consideration, while a flip flop performed in the heat of a political campaign is transparent political double talk, in an effort to offend the least amount of people. 

And if the polls are any indicator, the electorate, especially those likely to vote, can tell which flip flops are an authentic changing of one's mind vs trying to say anything in order to get elected

[Michael Tee]

<<And may I suggest a "flip flop" performed when it largely means nothing, and has presious little effect on them politically, is merely a change in one's mind & position, once more factors have been taken into consideration . . . >>

That is just your own rather indulgent take on the situation, where more realistic people would have to consider it obvious that McCain was abandoning his convictions to advance himself within the party as the election got closer.

<< . . .  while a flip flop performed in the heat of a political campaign is transparent political double talk, in an effort to offend the least amount of people. >>

That is all too obvious, but I don't think McCain can entirely escape the pandering charge either, regardless of when his flip-flops occurred.  None of them are ancient history, they all IIRC occurred in the last couple of years.

<<And if the polls are any indicator, the electorate, especially those likely to vote, can tell which flip flops are an authentic changing of one's mind vs trying to say anything in order to get elected>>

The polls actually say nothing in respect of what effect the flip-flops have had on anyone.

[sirs]

Alrighty, you run with that, Tee