See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Why They’re Called "Libtards" | Hennessy's View
2. Obama, “Can’t Touch This” Candidate again: « Riggword Weblog
3. Is Obama dumb or does he just play dumb when it suits him? | The College Politico
4. The Wide Awake Cafe » Mother Goose on Obama
5. The Other McCain: Question his patriotism
6. Obama: “You Can’t Touch This” « The Vast Global Zionist Conspiracy v 5.0
7. Obama: Attacks on me are unpatriotic! « NObama - Not Now, Not Ever
8. Obama: Attacks on me are unpatriotic! « NObama - Not Now, Not Ever
9. Sen. Obama: The Whiner « PaulSwansen’s Weblog
10. Obama Claims The “Too Good” Defense « Tai-Chi Policy
11. Obama Biden Comedy Writer Revealed? « Riggword Weblog
12. Political Party Poop

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #450759
   On September 11th, 2008 at 10:17 am, commonsensemom said:

   One thing Obama is really good at is painting himself as a victim. This pattern is well established by now. “THEY are going to say he’s got a funny name,” “THEY are going to say he doesn’t look like the other presidents on our currency,” “THEY are twisting my words”, etc., etc.

   I watched the coverage of his statement yesterday morning about the lipstick flap. I was prepared to “forgive and forget” if we would do one simple thing – he could even assert that it was an innocent remark, taken completely out of context – all he had to so was say he was it was an unfortunate choice of words and that he did not mean anything personal by the comment. (It would have been nice to hear him say he was sorry if his words had been taken that way, but I wasn’t expecting miracles!) That sentiment, however, was notably absent from his remarks.

   Instead, he played the victim card yet again, and blamed the whole flap on John McCain. How hypocritical that words chosen unwisely by Barack Obama somehow end up being John McCain’s fault. Victim. America doesn’t need a victim sitting in the most powerful chair in the world.

2. #450762
   On September 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am, Dimsdale said:

   On September 11th, 2008 at 12:20 am, emjem24 said:

   nyk said:
   Well, he’s only speaking for those of us who know bottom-feeding Republicans will do anything — lie, cheat, steal, throw dirt in your eyes, sucker punch your mother and then protest your eating arugula (don’t even MENTION gherkins) — to win.

   Bottom feeders? Is this where you want to take this thread too, nyk? Because many think Obummer is an effete elitist who doesn’t have anything more in common with ordinary American people than some more put on patriotism when it’s required of him?

   For a person who constantly complains about Republicans criticizing Obummer’s dietary habits, there’s some other valid arguments you’re missing. What are his plans for the military? Who and what will he tax? How is he going to “improve” health care? Education? Illegal immigration? Iraq? Among others.

   All I hear is so much sloganeering, and at 33, I’ve heard this from other Dem candidates before. Does Al Gore’s lock box ring a bell? I want real, practical details from BOTH candidates, not the same old Rove tactics that Obummer is employing right now digging up dirt on Sarah Palin and the constant linking between McCain and Pres. Bush.

   McCain is no Pres. Bush. He opposed many Bush proposals, and didn’t support the overzealous spending by the Republicans. When Obummer actually makes some ads or speeches regarding what he’ll actually do, then perhaps we’ll get back to the issues.

   If you’re silly enough to belief that Republicans are “bottom-feeders” and Dems don’t engage in similar tactics or even worse (like tearing down the Palin family), then you need to wake up. Then again, you’re naive enough to believe Obummer’s fabrications and the lies he told over the years. He is no new politician, just the same Dem model with a new face.

   There’s more discourse going on about your candidate than just the superficial.

   Very well spoken. nyk, you are careening down the low road with that criticism. It is beneath you.

   On September 11th, 2008 at 8:22 am, lgm said:

   Whatever honor McCain earned as a POW, he has forfeited in this dishonorable campaign. Obama is refusing to wallow in the mud with him (clue: this is a pig reference). Good for Obama. Thank G-d one of the presidential candidates has a shred of decency.

   McCain could never forfeit his honor. If you think this campaign is “dishonorable,” it is only because your man is floundering in the wake of Sarah Palin, who is usurping his uniqueness. No matter what you think of him personally or politically, you cannot call him dishonorable. That word does not apply to him. Stubborn, wrongheaded, whatever, but not dishonorable. You are barking up the lipstick tree with that.

   Back to topic: Sorry, but his “lipstick on a pig” remark was taken exactly as it was meant: as a swipe at Palin. I asked several women (8) what they thought of the controversy, no leading questions or anything. They felt precisely as my wife did: he attacked her with a smarmy reference to her hockey mom joke. These were 3/4 Democrats too.

   How can the man we are told is highly intelligent and an outspoken orator make such a mistake if it were not planned? Let us not forget the cadre of speechwriters that aid him in his appearances. Whether or not you think it was planned (and I don’t believe he is stupid enough to think otherwise), it came off as an attack. That is what women will remember. It backfired big time.

   Face it: there are words that you aren’t going to be able to use when attacking Palin, just as there are words that you cannot use to attack Obama. Everyone knows it, and Obama thought he could pull it off. He was dead wrong. Judgment score: 0. Add a singular lack of class.

   Back to the issues: Bush announced his willingness to send troops to Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda. That’s what Obama said he should do and what McCain refused to do.

   Timing is everything. Their status as a key ally is likely to change with the stepping down of Musharraf. If you did it a year ago, the results would have been compeletly different. Does this mean that Obama is turning into Bush? That is what is implied every time McCain agrees with him. It remains to be seen if it was a good decision.

3. #450792
   On September 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am, walterc said:

   LC said:

   You will NEVER hear Obama say he is ’sorry’ in the context of an apology. Not to himself, not to his “friends” and certainly not to the American people.

   I heard a woman from Denver call into the Hugh Hewitt show the other day and she mentioned that her and her husband noticed that not once in his acceptance speech did he thank the people of Denver for having the convention. She also noticed it was no more than 30 seconds or so into McCains speech that he was thanking the people of Minneapolis for being great hosts.

   I can’t verify the Obama issue since I didn’t watch it, but she’s right about the McCain speech).

   That’s the difference between a candidate serving his country and one serving his ego.

4. #450825
   On September 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am, uhangtight said:

   I don’t know if another commentor has stated this, but he plagarized the whole line about McCain. There are two cartoons, by Toles, that came out just prior to this ’statement’ by Obamitler. One shows McCain warning Washington about the change and listing all of his ’similarities’ to Bush. The next one is of John McCain standing next to a pig with Lipstick and glasses (Sarah).

   So, it just proves that Obamitler does not have an original thought. His ability to make appropriate filterings of what he has seen or given is zero. And, there are still those out there that believe he has the capability to lead? OMG, this country is in deep doo doo.

5. #450828
   On September 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am, uhangtight said:

   sorry one is toles the other cartoon is watson..

6. #450852
   On September 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am, walterc said:

   uhangtight said:

   I don’t know if another commentor has stated this, but he plagarized the whole line about McCain.

   Well that explains his VP pick. Birds of a feather and all that.

7. #450873
   On September 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am, lgm said:

   Ginger said (#82):

   McCain doesn’t have a dishonorable bone in his (tortured) body.

   His campaign of smears and lies against Obama is dishonorable. If his commercials said: “Obama’s health care plan — too expensive. Obama — not ready to lead” that would be honorable.

   Running an ad saying Obama wants to teach sex in kindergarten, that’s dishonorable.

   Speaking of health care (an actual issue), did you know McCain’s plan calls for people to pay tax on employer supplied health care. That’s how most people with health insurance get it. In other words, McCain’s health care plan is huge tax hike on the middle class.

8. #450909
   On September 11th, 2008 at 11:18 am, Dave Turson said:

   Obama clarified his lipstick on a pig comment in a silly way:
   

   “This is sort of silly season in politics, not that there’s a non-silly season, but it gets sillier,” Obama said. “And it’s a common expression in at least Illinois. I don’t know about New York City. I don’t know what you put lipstick on here.”

   Well, to my mind, this only clears up where Obama got the smart aleck remark that Palin was just a mayor from Wasilly. He just can’t help himself, hence his constant sardonic grins, sneers and smirks.

9. #450935
   On September 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am, navywife91 said:

   Running an ad saying Obama wants to teach sex in kindergarten, that’s dishonorable.

   I don’t know if you watch H&C, but Hannity read the actual bill that Obama supported and it did address masturbation and homosexuality. Parents were allowed to opt out, but Obama claims he only wanted to teach children about child predators. That’s great, but what does that have to do with touching yourself?

   If anyone has a link to the actual bill, I’d appreciate it. I haven’t heard the Obama campaign deny the content Hannity read, but their excuse is that it never actually passed, so it’s ok.

10. #450939
    On September 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am, Salt said:

    lgm’s “dishonorable” example:

    Running an ad saying Obama wants to teach sex in kindergarten, that’s dishonorable.

    Yet…

    Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday [July 2007] that sex education for kindergartners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”

    “I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

    “‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”

    “But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”

    When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’”

    …

    In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite Obama’s support, the legislation was not enacted.

    So, when Barack tells Planned Parenthood that it’s the right thing to do, it’s honorable.

    When conservatives point out that he said it, it’s dishonorable.

    Illinois is a rather deep blue state despite some counties that are strongly red (we don’t count dead voters outside of Cook County ), yet Obama could not get this legislation passed. That’s meaningful, don’t you think?

11. #450946
    On September 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am, navywife91 said:

    Speaking of health care (an actual issue), did you know McCain’s plan calls for people to pay tax on employer supplied health care. That’s how most people with health insurance get it. In other words, McCain’s health care plan is huge tax hike on the middle class

    Did you actually go to McCain’s site and check his plan? No, you just repeat what Joe Biden said.

    John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit – effectively cash – of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

12. #450963
    On September 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am, Regulus said:

    Curious, when Hopenchange makes a shrill, desperate-sounding, methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much appeal to his “love of country,” where are all the libs who’d ordinarily respond in Pavlovian fashion about “patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel?”

    Oh, that’s right, he’s their scoundrel. So it’s different in this case. Yeah, right.

13. #450981
    On September 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On September 11th, 2008 at 8:22 am, lgm said: Back to the issues: Bush announced his willingness to send troops to Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda. That’s what Obama said he should do and what McCain refused to do.

    So, I guess that means OBAMA is in the tank for Pres. Bush, not McCain. Do we really want four more years of the Bush administration?

14. #451003
    On September 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pm, Yashmak said:

    Good point, happyscrapper.

15. #451103
    On September 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Then what’s he doing running to Letterman to carp about what They said?

    Mommy, mommy they’re talking about Palin and not me…

16. #451108
    On September 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pm, rambler said:

    I’m still waiting for Obama to say “God bless America”. He can’t. So in my book, he’s not a patriot who loves his country until he walks the walk. When he doesn’t get elected, how much will he love his country then?

17. #451113
    On September 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Did you actually go to McCain’s site and check his plan? No, you just repeat what Joe Biden said.

    And who knows where Biden got it…

    It’s a great idea, health insurance that you get to pick so it fits your families needs – rather than whatever the government deigns to give you. Oh I know, the left doesn’t want choice, they like their government making decisions for them…

18. #451275
    On September 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm, lgm said:

    navywife91 (#103):

    Did you actually go to McCain’s site and check his plan?

    I heard McCain say it. Does McCain’s web site say something different?

19. #451283
    On September 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm, navywife91 said:

    I heard McCain say it. Does McCain’s web site say something different?

    It’s posted above.

20. #451285
    On September 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm, navywife91 said:

    ok, I just have to say I love the way Rush is playing the cymbals “ba dum dum”, you know to symbolize a joke, everytime he plays a Biden clip or Obama clip.

    It’s killin’ ‘em!
    Ha, ha, ha!

21. #451403
    On September 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm, lgm said:

    navywife91 (#111)

    I guess this is from the McCain web site:

    John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage.

    What “reform” of the tax code is he talking about. Is it the reform that makes employer provided health care taxable?

22. #451434
    On September 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, navywife91 said:

    What “reform” of the tax code is he talking about. Is it the reform that makes employer provided health care taxable?

    I can at least be honest and say “I’m no expert”, but you said you heard him say it. I never did, but if you happen to find a link to that statement, I’d appreciate it. McCain is not perfect and most of us here aren’t his biggest cheerleaders.

23. #451543
    On September 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked?
    “I don’t want to discount the possibility,” he said.

    Printed in the New York Times on September 11, 2001

24. #451583
    On September 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pm, uhangtight said:

    John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage.

    John McCain wants to provide individuals the opportunity for ‘choice’ when it comes to health care. He wants to offer more choices, that means that he will most likely proivde a tax ‘credit’ to those who prefer to opt out of the employer provided and ‘purchase’ their own.

    As we know, conservatives truly believe in freedom of choice, whereas the liberals believe in no choice but government choice. Government decides that you should have this type of health care and that is it nothing more and nothing less.

    Thanks but no thanks I prefer freedom and would prefer to opt out of anything forced on anyone for my benefit, because I do not like to be a party to extortion. Thank-you very much…