Obama's "present" votes were eminently reasonable, and have a logical explanation

[jpgray]

Based on everything I've read about their meaning in Illinois politics, that's the case. But that doesn't matter. "I took the initiative in creating the internet," anyone? Another completely reasonable statement, yet it was spun to mean, in the face of all reason, that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. The Love Canal comment was similarly misinterpreted in the most bald and disingenuous way--in fact what Gore said was actually -changed- to "I was the one who started it all." He never said it, but it didn't matter. Then there was this gem from 2004:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America, but if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

What was this spun as? "Kerry wants a 'global test' that our foreign policy must pass, and therefore wants other nations to have a veto on our right to defend ourselves." This despite the fact that he contradicted that in the directly preceding clause, -and- explained concisely what he meant by global test to avoid any misinterpretation.

Yet it still happened. Luckily the media don't seem to hate Obama the way they obviously despised Gore and Kerry, but for those tearing out their hair wondering how this could be an issue when it's so blatantly not a big deal, this is how it happens. And there's no real way to combat such disingenuous attacks if they seem valid based on a superficial examination of the "facts," because a valid explanation can always be tuned out. People just hear "global test," or a paraphrase like "I invented the internet," and any explanation that follows (however reasonable) rings hollow to those only superficially aware. And that's a large amount of the electorate, thanks to the media.

[lapfog_1]

1. Despite her "35 years" of experience, Hillary

can't run the "echo chamber" as well as just about any repuke you can find under a random rock.

Democrats just don't have the infrastructure in place to do it. And... most Democrats think for themselves rather than letting a left wing "Rush" think for them.

[jpgray]

2. You're right--no Democratic spin team I've seen has found a solution to this

[lapfog_1]

3. Mostly because we don't need SPIN

all we need are facts... and a populace willing to look at facts.

The problem with Gore and Kerry was they thought reasonable educated Americans, interested in fair play, would either dismiss the attacks as "no way that's true" or they would do a minimum amount of fact checking and determine it was a lie. I also think that they wouldn't or didn't believe that the MSM would go along with the lies.

They were wrong.

To combat this spin crap, you have to have the research done on exactly why it's a lie, distilled into a "smack down" sound bite, and delivered over and over again.

Sort of like Obama did on the "He thinks that the Repukes are the party of good ideas" lie.

[cloudythescribbler]

4. I agree with the post, but w/all the Obama-bashers around here it's pissing in the wind nt

[jpgray]

5. These sorts of posts never get many replies, but it never hurts to put them up.