Why do Obama supporters only complain about the "distractions" that hurt their candidate?

[Austinitis]

I'm getting kind of sick of threads like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5812103">this one, or http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5809262&mesg_id=5809262">this one, or http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5804123">this one. I mean, seriously - the major news networks spent hours this week covering random shark attacks off Mexico, http://youtube.com/results?search_query=paula%20abdul&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1">Paula Abdul's slip-up, and celebrity sexual-harassment lawsuits. But the Obama people didn't say a word about the time wasted on that stuff.

And that's because this whole "distraction" complaint was never a serious reply. It's because the Obama people know that Wright hurts them; it's because they've seen the poll numbers; it's because they know that there's no substantive explanation for how Obama sat in that church for 20 years, that they're forced to pretend like this isn't a big deal and we shouldn't be talking about it.

But it is a big deal, and the poll numbers reflect that fact that Americans see it as such. Obama sat in the pews for 20 years with a bigot. And for 20 years he enmeshed himself in that institution of bigotry. For 20 years Obama steeped in Wright's hatred. And, after all that, he gave a less than honest explanation of his relationship.

And the media is supposed to treat that like a distraction? Even if you don't think this should sink him, it's obviously a big deal and certainly newsworthy.



The Obama people will forgive me, I hope, if I take their complaints somewhat less than seriously...

[EFerrari]

1. Because your candidate has already lost. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Bingo!

[cliffordu]

15. DING DING DING We have a winner!!!

:patriot:

[StevieM]

14. If she had already lost then there would be no problem here. Obama is the nominee when

he wins a majority of all the delegates to the Convention--no sooner.

Steve

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Wow, so Gravel is still viable? Why didn't you say so?

[StevieM]

19. I don't think Gravel is going to do as well in Denver as HRC will (eom)

[John Q. Citizen]

25. So you have dumped your savings into the futures market, Right? You will make a killing I tell you

a killing.

It's paying approximately 4 to 1 for smart folks like you who can see the writing on the wall.

How much do you have invested? It's worth sticking it on your credit card or getting a line of credit, or whatever you have to do, because the pay-off will be huge when Hillary does very well at the convention.

[rove karl rove]

2. dismissal attempt

that really isn't working AND people tend to resent someone telling them what should be important or not.

[Austinitis]

10. At first I thought you were responding to me, and then I realized

that you're criticizing the Obama's camp's efforts to portray the Wright scandal as a "distraction."

:rofl:

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Show me the exact path to a Clinton nomination...

And you'll SEE why we complain about the 'distraction'.

[Austinitis]

8. HOW CLINTON CAN WIN IT

The Fix (from the Washington Post) already gave one possible rout to a Hillary nomination http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/how_clinton_can_do_it.html">here. Other pundits have described other possible routs for Hillary.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Obama could be hit by lightning. Then Hillary could win! Think about it. It is possible!

Can't say it's not possible.

[gristy]

21. I read that link as a description of how Clinton is not going to be able to win it

[Gore1FL]

27. No it didn't

it set groundwork for things that would have to happen first (none have as I demostrated last few times this has been poasted) but it didn't explain how the delegate gap would close.

So it wasn't a possible route, it was a possible way to pack the car. Google maps would have to divert all processing power to find a realistic route and still not come up with on by 2015.

[Faygo Kid]

4. OK, let me get this right: Obama was supposed to criticize shark attacks and Paula Abdul.

AND, you don't think the Rev. Wright story has gotten enough press attention.

You will forgive me, I hope, if I hope that the gentlemen in the white suits coming to your door take your comments less than seriously . . .

[DJ13]

5. Paula Abdul..... ? .....Sharks.......? .....Seriously?

:rofl:

[casus belli]

6. Maybe you'd understand better...

if Hillary's Bosnia sniper-fire gaffe were still being played ad nauseum, or if her NAFTA position changes were on every channel, etc.

[Austinitis]

13. I find it interesting that the Obama people didn't treat that like a distraction

But insist Wright is totally different.

I think they're both relevant.

[casus belli]

22. You're painting with a very broad brush...

I consider all of the above distractions from the real issues. Only one of them is still being hammered by the mainstream media.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Yes, interesting, very intersting. But stupid!

That was a Laugh-In gag, by the way, in case you are of a certain age that wouldn't recognize the reference.

[MADem]

7. It distracts from the fact that he hasn't much to say.

As for Wright, it gets worse. Turns out, he really isn't a very nice guy. He STOLE the wife of a parishoner. He was giving them marriage counselling and he stepped out with the guy's wife.

Now, that's pretty low.

From the NY Scandal Sheet: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05042008/news/nationalnews/baracks_rev__stole_a_wife_109298.htm

[chascarrillo]

11. Give a cigar to this guy!

[casus belli]

24. Cigar. Interesting choice. n/t

[stray cat]

12. Do you think its ok to talk about Hillary and pantsuits, she's a lesbian

and thinks people are shooting at her? I complain about those topics as well or do you think those topics are ok just like the sidelines on Obama?

[adoraz]

16. wow, you think Wright's media attention has been just?

you really think he deserved all that, over Wright?

Don't you care about actual issues?

I've made a thread in the past calling out the media on completely unfair stuff about Hillary, so whats your problem linking me in the thread?

[gristy]

17. "Obama supporters"?

That's a pretty broad brush, you got there, kemosabe. What's the matter, gettin' worn out responding to the posters in individual threads, and those three threads in particular? Gotta go nuclear on us with a broad-brush OP?

Oh, but wait. You didn't post to any of those three threads, did you. :shrug:

[DemGa]

26. Yes, it's about judgment and trust

And believing a man of Obama's intellect was oblivious to the views of a man so influential in his life.

Sorry, I cannot believe Obama is that naive.

[gristy]

28. Is that a deal buster for you? Otherwise he's a great guy?

Or maybe that's simply the biggest Obama negative for you? Or maybe it's pretty far down on the list? If you can answer which of these three the case is, I may have a follow-up...

[DemGa]

29. Wright is not isolated

I'm speaking of the deception of Obama.

It was the continuance of the right-wing assaults on Hillary's character from Obama and his campaign that turned me off completely to the man - All the while putting forth the public face of "new politics" while practicing character assassination.

[Vinca]

30. No one dares bring up your candidate's distractions, despite

the fact we all know what the Republican campaign would be against her. Hillary would be disappeared, except to rally the base, and the entire campaign would be to keep Bill out of the White House.

[Austinitis]

31. What are you talking about?

The Obama camp has been more than willing to go on the attack against Hillary.

[Vinca]

33. You haven't heard a peep from the Obama campaign about any

of the Clinton scandals. Nothing. He hasn't played guilt-by-association with any of her felon associates, hasn't mentioned even one of Bill's escapades with women who aren't Hillary. But that's what the Republicans will run on. It's kind of amusing the way the Democratic Party leaders are acting as if there is nothing in Hillary's history that will cause a problem - even though we know they know and they know we know. And we all know the Republicans know.

[Forkboy]

32. Why do some people see only one side acting in a way that both do?

[Austinitis]

34. Because it's mainly the Obama people. n/t