Support NeoGAF

[Deus Ex Machina]

CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA

Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.

The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.

The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Developing...

http://drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

That's sad. Why would anyone vote for her?

 

[woeds]

That photo also made the frontpage of Fox news....

 

[Deku]

I'm sorry. But, half of Americans already don't pay income taxes. And he's proposing to add another 17 million to that category via tax cuts/credits. That isn't shared sacrifice - that's wealth redistribution.

Does that include children who don't have a job and teens working McJobs?

Yeah, I wouldn't call APF a democrat. He's a moderate that for some reason became infatuated with the Clinton candidacy. Still, Bill Kristol? It's like me posting an article by Cynthia McKinney and expecting it to be taken seriously.

Ah I see. I just gave him the benefit of the doubt since all I've seen him do is spin for the clintons.

 

[ZeroTolerance]

That photo also made the frontpage of Fox news....

It's faux news so am not surprised. Unless some major shit breaks out, it will be the media's talking point until tomorrows debate.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Does that include children who don't have a job and teens working McJobs?

I honor of all Obamaniacs - go read his website.

 

[syllogism]

Clinton's response to the day's Drudge

The Clinton campaign puts out a response from Maggie Williams, which doesn't respond to the question of whether a staffer was circulating the photo of Obama in Somali garb, but takes issue with the Obama campaign's embrace of the issue:

"Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

What

 

[Tamanon]

Clinton campaign responds:

Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted.

I honestly don't know what they're trying to do here. Now the Obama campaign is responsible for distracting attention when they RESPOND quickly to a photo?:lol

 

[Aurvant]

I say we just throw all the unwealthy bastards in a shanty town and call it a day.

If only....

I kid, I kid.

But seriously, aside from the people who suffer from some work prohibiting disability there is really no reason why anyone in America cannot find a good paying job. Hell, there are people out there that work two maybe THREE jobs and people claim that they cant even find one? Really?

I call shenanigans and laziness on that one. Heck, imagine all the money many of those welfare and homeless recipients (the ones who are just lazy and those are the majority) would save if they quit spending all their freakin money on worthless things.....like cigarettes, booze, and World of Warcraft?

 

[v1cious]

Clinton's response to the day's Drudge

The Clinton campaign puts out a response from Maggie Williams, which doesn't respond to the question of whether a staffer was circulating the photo of Obama in Somali garb, but takes issue with the Obama campaign's embrace of the issue:

"Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

wait... huh?

 

[soul creator]

"how dare he be a good speaker and inspire people? How dare his wife say that people should be more involved in their government? fucking commie socialist wealth redistributers! Shame on you Obama."

 

[Master Thespian]

"how dare he be a good speaker and inspire people? How dare his wife say that people should be more involved in their government? fucking commie socialist wealth redistributers! Shame on you Obama."

Didn't you know? Everything functions at it's best when we have a mental invalid running the country and only WEALTHY people have a say in a democracy*!


*Yes, I know we actually have a republic, you assholes.

 

[boredJonathan]

Clinton's response to the day's Drudge

The Clinton campaign puts out a response from Maggie Williams, which doesn't respond to the question of whether a staffer was circulating the photo of Obama in Somali garb, but takes issue with the Obama campaign's embrace of the issue:

"Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

My head is going to implode from reading this.

 

[Aurvant]

Didn't you know? Everything functions at it's best when we have a mental invalid running the country and only WEALTHY people have a say in a democracy*!


*Yes, I know we actually have a republic, you assholes.

Actually, I'll take my asshole-ish self one step further and explain that we are neither a Democracy nor a Republic.

We are governed as a people joined together under the concept known as the RULE OF LAW. There is no real government title for it except it resides somewhere within the realm of a republic and a democracy all mixed up together. The Constitution is our law and it has within it a set of rules that our government must follow but in these days.....our government pretty much ignores it. No, I'm not condoning the acts of the business corporations trying to use money to swing special interest in their favor, for that is dishonest work and is an abuse which does nothing but hinder the free-market instead of help it.

However, regardless of these problems I would still put more faith in to the private sector than let some socialistic government punk tell me what that he is going to come and take some more of the cash that -I- worked for and then go pump it in to social programs which people abuse and use as crutches instead of dealing with life and working.

My view might be seen as harsh or non-compassionate but I do not care, for I believe that individual freedom and liberties take precedent over social stability and shared responsibility.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Clinton's response to the day's Drudge

The Clinton campaign puts out a response from Maggie Williams, which doesn't respond to the question of whether a staffer was circulating the photo of Obama in Somali garb, but takes issue with the Obama campaign's embrace of the issue:

"Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

que?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Exactly, he wants to basically use federal government powers to steal away more money from people who are actually successful and redistribute it to the unwealthy. For people who are living on the government cheese they are going to love this idea because, really, they are knots on a log and don't really want to work anyways. They just want a handout.

For those of us who actually work for our money and who are very fond of the idea of keeping MORE of it this is a nightmare.

Why is the idea that the poor deserve or want to be poor so prevalent?

Just because people are poor does NOT mean they are lazy, that they stay home all day and watch TV while gleefully living off of food stamps.

The gap between the upper class and the rest of society is widening. And yet, any time someone even THINKS of bringing up the possibility of wealth redistribution, or universal health care, or anything that might benefit the poor and middle class and not the upper class, you hear something along the lines of "But but why should the upper class pay for the poor? They're just lazy drug addicts that will use the extra money to buy more drugs while continuing to live off of food stamps!"

There is this underlying idea that if an individual is poor, that they must have done something to warrant their financial situation, that they somehow brought it upon themselves or deserve it, because people don't like to consider the alternative, because it means that there's a possibility that they, too, could sink into poverty, at no fault of their own.

Are there people who abuse the system? Probably.
Are there people who were financially irresponsible? Of course. But that problem is definitely not exclusive to the lower-class.

But I don't think it's wrong to want to make the wealth distribution a little less skewed in this country, to make the top 0.1% of society pay a little bit more so that the other 95% of society can be a little better off, especially when that top 0.1%'s wealth has increased a lot more in proportionate to the rest of the country over the last decade or two.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Hell, there are people out there that work two maybe THREE jobs

Uniquely American, isn't it?

 

[maynerd]

However, regardless of these problems I would still put more faith in to the private sector than let some socialistic government punk tell me what that he is going to come and take some more of the cash that -I- worked for and then go pump it in to social programs which people abuse and use as crutches instead of dealing with life and working.

Yes because the private sector cares about people.

Just a couple of fun ones over the last few days.

http://consumerist.com/359904/cancer-patient-wins-9-million-from-heathnet-in-arbitration-settlement

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3429943.ece

 

[Deku]

SurveyUSA says 1 in 4 Texas democratic primary voters have already voted, poll will be out at 11pm est

In terms of trajectory of his campaign with new data showing he is in the single digits behind Hillary can we extrapolate this to prior contests. How was the polling in WI a week prior to the primary
?

 

[Aurvant]

Why is the idea that the poor deserve or want to be poor so prevalent?

Just because people are poor does NOT mean they are lazy, that they stay home all day and watch TV while gleefully living off of food stamps.

The gap between the upper class and the rest of society is widening. And yet, any time someone even THINKS of bringing up the possibility of wealth redistribution, or universal health care, or anything that might benefit the poor and middle class and not the upper class, you hear something along the lines of "But but why should the upper class pay for the poor? They're just lazy drug addicts that will use the extra money to buy more drugs while continuing to live off of food stamps!"

There is this underlying idea that if an individual is poor, that they must have done something to warrant their financial situation, that they somehow brought it upon themselves or deserve it, because people don't like to consider the alternative, because it means that there's a possibility that they, too, could sink into poverty, at no fault of their own.

Are there people who abuse the system? Probably.
Are there people who were financially irresponsible? Of course. But that problem is definitely not exclusive to the lower-class.

But I don't think it's wrong to want to make the wealth distribution a little less skewed in this country, to make the top 0.1% of society pay a little bit more so that the other 95% of society can be a little better off, especially when that top 0.1%'s wealth has increased a lot more in proportionate to the rest of the country over the last decade or two.

I do not believe in wealth distribution. I think that the money a person makes on their paycheck (before taxes) belongs solely to them. Not to fifteen hundred people scattered out across the US. One reason why I support the Fair Tax, but the republican candidate (ugh) doesn't support it so I no longer give a rats ass about him.

Still, I do not believe that we should be punishing the people who have been more successful in their lives than everyone else. That is an unfair practice and your basically knocking someone down higher than you just to make yourself feel better.

Are people not familiar with the quote: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That is the most important saying in our society for even though it guarantees us our liberties and our lives it does not automatically guarantee us success. It was designed that way because everyone must find their own way and (this is how life works) it also means that people may pursue something their whole lives and possibly never attain it.

It is the downside of a free-society although the ends justify the means. Not everyone is going to be rich and that might make some people sad, but thats the cost of freedom....some make it but some don't. Now, as good stewards and people we can use our right to donate money to charities or give our our own personal funds to people who are in need, but I believe that should be reserved to CHOICE and not be a forceful action made by some executive power like the federal government.

EDIT:

Yes because the private sector cares about people.

It's not about caring. It's called business and while the abusers of the free-market are dishonest cretins that deserve to be punched very VERY hard.....it does not give everyone else the right to take the money that does not belong to them. Just because someone makes more money doesn't mean you should be able to come up to them, at gunpoint, and take a higher percentage just because they were more successful in their endeavors.

 

[Beer Monkey]

One reason why I support the Fair Tax

You support the Fair Tax, which becomes regressive so that billionaires pay maybe 5% of their yearly earnings as taxes and poor and middle-income people pay 20%+?

Warren Buffett thinks you are wrong and so does anybody else with common sense who isn't an evil shit.

 

[siamesedreamer]

There is this underlying idea that if an individual is poor, that they must have done something to warrant their financial situation, that they somehow brought it upon themselves or deserve it, because people don't like to consider the alternative, because it means that there's a possibility that they, too, could sink into poverty, at no fault of their own.

Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be a system in place to help get someone back on their feet. Unemployment is a great example.

But, the fact of the matter is, government programs to end poverty do not work. That cannot be argued. Go watch Maury Povich or Jerry Springer and tell me the problem isn't self-perpetuating. Government takes responsibility away from the individual. And until they start taking responsibility for their own lives, nothing will change - no matter how many billions are thrown at them.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I do not believe in wealth distribution. I think that the money a person makes on their paycheck (before taxes) belongs solely to them. Not to fifteen hundred people scattered out across the US. One reason why I support the Fair Tax, but the republican candidate (ugh) doesn't support it so I no longer give a rats ass about him.

Still, I do not believe that we should be punishing the people who have been more successful in their lives than everyone else. That is an unfair practice and your basically knocking someone down higher than you just to make yourself feel better.

Are people not familiar with the quote: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That is the most important saying in our society for even though it guarantees us our liberties and our lives it does not automatically guarantee us success. It was designed that way because everyone must find their own way and (this is how life works) it also means that people may pursue something their whole lives and possibly never attain it.

It is the downside of a free-society although the ends justify the means. Not everyone is going to be rich and that might make some people sad, but thats the cost of freedom....some make it but some don't. Now, as good stewards and people we can use our right to donate money to charities or give our our own personal funds to people who are in need, but I believe that should be reserved to CHOICE and not be a forceful action made by some executive power like the federal government.

But see, the problem is, the rich individuals of society that manage large corporations often manage their own payrolls.

The rich have been increasing their own payrolls disproportionately compared to their workers lately. You might have a point if the rich and poor's monetary situations were independent, but when a company beats expectations and management rewards themselves with big raises and bonuses while keeping other employees' wages the same, that's not right.

They'll still be a LOT better off than the rest of society, even with wealth redistribution.

 

[Door2Dawn]

This thread has gotten kinda boring :/

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

My head is going to implode from reading this.

:lol

clinton camp: *secretly releases photo*
obama camp: "wtf is this?!"
clinton camp: "oh hey, what's the big deal? why you overreacting? stick to the issues, man"

 

[maynerd]

I do not believe in wealth distribution. I think that the money a person makes on their paycheck (before taxes) belongs solely to them. Not to fifteen hundred people scattered out across the US. One reason why I support the Fair Tax, but the republican candidate (ugh) doesn't support it so I no longer give a rats ass about him.

Still, I do not believe that we should be punishing the people who have been more successful in their lives than everyone else. That is an unfair practice and your basically knocking someone down higher than you just to make yourself feel better.

Are people not familiar with the quote: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That is the most important saying in our society for even though it guarantees us our liberties and our lives it does not automatically guarantee us success. It was designed that way because everyone must find their own way and (this is how life works) it also means that people may pursue something their whole lives and possibly never attain it.

It is the downside of a free-society although the ends justify the means. Not everyone is going to be rich and that might make some people sad, but thats the cost of freedom....some make it but some don't. Now, as good stewards and people we can use our right to donate money to charities or give our our own personal funds to people who are in need, but I believe that should be reserved to CHOICE and not be a forceful action made by some executive power like the federal government.

EDIT:

It's not about caring. It's called business and while the abusers of the free-market are dishonest cretins that deserve to be punched very VERY hard.....it does not give everyone else the right to take the money that does not belong to them. Just because someone makes more money doesn't mean you should be able to come up to them, at gunpoint, and take a higher percentage just because they were more successful in their endeavors.

I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you think that a hard working responsible person working 40 hours a week should make a wage that allows them to live comfortably no matter what their job is?

2. Do you think that every person has the same exact opportunities to be successful?

3. Do you think that the rich have become rich at the expense of poor people?

 

[thegreyfox]

Can we talk about the wealth distribution we give to China (in interest)?

 

[Aurvant]

To my opponents:

Answer me this! Why is it such an evil sin to be rich and wealthy? Why is it such a damaging thing to be successful and have worked hard for the money you make? Also, why is it so bad for people to make millions of dollars if by the means they have achieved it are noble and honest?

 

[Apharmd]

Government takes responsibility away from the individual. And until they start taking responsibility for their own lives, nothing will change - no matter how many billions are thrown at them.

This is correct.

But what about people who do start taking responsibility for their own lives and several others? What about the working single moms with multiple kids because daddy bailed and can't earn enough even if they're working two jobs? Just because we get some deadbeats in there, does that mean we have to fuck over the moms too?

 

[Kildace]

:lol

clinton camp: *secretly releases photo*
obama camp: "wtf is this?!"
clinton camp: "oh hey, what's the big deal? why you overreacting? stick to the issues, man"

This was obviously rehearsed and supposed to smear Obama with the pic *and* make him look like the bad guy. How .. Rovian of Hillary.

 

[thegreyfox]

To my opponents:

Answer me this! Why is it such an evil sin to be rich and wealthy? Why is it such a damaging thing to be successful and have worked hard for the money you make? Also, why is it so bad for people to make millions of dollars if by the means they have achieved it are noble and honest?

Not a thing wrong with being rich. Fuck i hope to be rich to someday. I just think it's unfair that everyone that is middle class or lower has to pay 30% in taxes. While the super rich get to pay 15% because they are umm rich...

 

[maynerd]

Not a thing wrong with being rich. Fuck i hope to be rich to someday. I just think it's unfair that everyone that is middle class or lower has to pay 30% in taxes. While the super rich get to pay 15% because they are umm rich...

With all of the loopholes in the tax system do the rich even pay that much?

 

[RubxQub]

This was obviously rehearsed and supposed to smear Obama with the pic *and* make him look like the bad guy. How .. Rovian of Hillary.

I hate this stuff...

I seriously hope Hillary fucking dies... Her campaign tactics are driving me up the walls. Every day is some new ridiculous shit she is pulling to try and gain favor.

Too bad all this does is make people hate her.

 

[Triumph]

To my opponents:

Answer me this! Why is it such an evil sin to be rich and wealthy? Why is it such a damaging thing to be successful and have worked hard for the money you make? Also, why is it so bad for people to make millions of dollars if by the means they have achieved it are noble and honest?

It depends on your definitions of: working hard, nobility and honesty. Does Warren Buffett deserve his fortune? For the most part, yes. Does Paris Hilton? No.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Have people forgotten why the Welfare program was reformed already? Have the lessons learned from that failed experiment been forgotten so soon?

 

[APF]

But he didn't wear the pin.

No, as he clearly said he did, but then thought he was wearing it as a proxy for patriotic feelings he didn't have, so he stopped wearing it. Which, frankly, is refreshingly honest for a politician aiming for Presidency of the United States. But wouldn't you agree that his confession--as well as that of his wife, recently--makes polls like the one CNN ran, posted above, completely and totally valid?

Hillary is trying this line of attack now and it makes her look foolish. You can't successfully prop yourself up on an "anti-enthusiasm" platform for obvious reasons. Assuming there is a 'cooling-off' phase as Obama is forced to discuss political minutia in the GE, he will be re-evaluated based on his competency during those discussions. There seems to be little suggesting that Obama is incompetent when it comes to articulating policy, however.

While I find your accusation that Obama is an articulate gentleman quite racist, I'll note he won't always have Wolf Blitzer at his side, forcing him to make coherent statements. But the point isn't that the opposition has to be "anti-enthusiasm;" the point is that the opposition simply has to be sober, rational, down-to-earth. Real. Honest--none of this quasi-spiritual, "save our souls" garbage.


maynerd: I answered "no" to all of your questions; what do I get?

 

[APF]

I seriously hope Hillary fucking dies...

I... see.

 

[GhaleonEB]

My head is going to implode from reading this.

Seriously. That's some despicable shit right there.

 

[RubxQub]

No, as he clearly said he did, but then thought he was wearing it as a proxy for patriotic feelings he didn't have, so he stopped wearing it. Which, frankly, is refreshingly honest for a politician aiming for Presidency of the United States. But wouldn't you agree that his confession--as well as that of his wife, recently--makes polls like the one CNN ran, posted above, completely and totally valid?

...

He doesn't wear the freaking pin because he wants to actually live patriotism instead of just "buying it" from Wal-Mart for a dollar.

His statement is that people wear the pin on their lapel and claim they are patriots. The only patriotic thing these people do is just that, wear a pin. Based on their actions, he doesn't feel they are serving the best interest of the American people.

This is why he doesn't wear the pin.

It's not because he doesn't love America. You're completely retarded if you think this.

 

[maynerd]

maynerd: I answered "no" to all of your questions; what do I get?

Nothing as the question wasn't directed at you.

 

[APF]

Why does Obama feel it's necessary to question the patriotism of his fellow Democrats?

 

[npm0925]

An idiotic move that reeks of desperation by the Hillary campaign. I'm guessing Obama told her privately that she wasn't getting the VP spot after Thursday night's debate.

 

[RubxQub]

Why does Obama feel it's necessary to question the patriotism of his fellow Democrats?

Why do you not understand anything? If you're as smart as you seem, surely you understand the symbolism he is striving for by not wearing the pin.

 

[Aurvant]

I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you think that a hard working responsible person working 40 hours a week should make a wage that allows them to live comfortably no matter what their job is?

2. Do you think that every person has the same exact opportunities to be successful?

3. Do you think that the rich have become rich at the expense of poor people?

Answer 1 - No, but I'll elaborate on this matter. While there are many people in this country who are grossly underpaid and I agree that these people are being shafted at the expense of their bosses. However, not EVERY boss or CEO is a scam artist nor does every corporation spit on their lower employees. Also, what if that person works at McDonalds or Wal-Mart or something like that? Should they also be making the same amount to live comfortably like the man who works in the machine shop (which is me) or the person who toils day in and day out in the fields or on the assembly line? The wages should fit the job and the skills of the individual.....not what they define as "comfortable living" because one makes comfort life might not be lavish enough for another.

Answer 2 - Yes, but there is also elaboration needed here too. It's a loaded question because even though the system is designed to give everyone an equal opportunity in life sometimes other people get in the way. Be it government regulation or a shitty boss with a bad attitude there is always going to be something that is going to be putting people down. However, these people (as long as they are able-bodied) all have the same amount of chances as everyone else and I don't think that even though they fail in one area that means they should give up. Life is about hardship and fighting through and rising to the top! Unless they are physically or mentally capable of doing so I say they should pick themselves up by their bootstraps and soldier on.

Also, while I am sure that people may play the gender or race card here I want to stop you now. This isn't the 1940's or 50's and while a few insensitive racist bastards may still exist out there I want to point out there are plenty of places in this country that will hire you based on your knowledge and skill and will pay you handsomely for it regardless of gender or ethnic background.

Answer 3 Not exactly. Some may argue that in teh case of Microsoft that Bill Gates is making billions but the workers at MS are not but without them he wouldn't have a country to run. HOWEVER, a poor man never gave another man a job. Some choose to follow and some choose to lead and while some workers HAVE been cheated that number is minute and very very low regardless of what the media might say. On the example of Gates again....You, I, and everyone else on this board has the opportunity to compete and possibly usurp the man from his high paying position of richest man EVAR. It's just that some people never take that chance to try and make something better or try and make something that is able to somehow take down the big guys without begging the government to do it for them.

Great example: Firefox. These guys got sick and tired of the bullshit IE browser so they decided they would start up a new browser and try and go head to head with the big dogs and its actually paying off for them in the end, but I digress....

The wealthy have become wealthy because they created a business (which gives people jobs you know) that provides a service which people will invest in and for the hardwork that goes in starting a business, building it, bringing in clients, and providing that service to make a profit which is the goal of business. Sure, it comes to a point that the company will be operated by people who make less than the boss but isn't that the point? If your the originator of the business and the man responsible for giving those people their jobs don't you think you should be able to make more money?

 

[Synth_floyd]

What is the meaning of that picture? How is it a smear? Am I supposed to think negatively of Obama because he's wearing traditional African clothing? I'm confused. If the Clinton campaign really did release it then it shows how out of ideas they are.

 

[syllogism]

So Edwards isn't endorsing yet, but Partners with Pro-Obama Groups in Anti-War Effort

 

[APF]

Why do you not understand anything? If you're as smart as you seem, surely you understand the symbolism he is striving for by not wearing the pin.

Why did he wear it in the first place? Why, in removing it, did he have to question the patriotism of his fellow Democrats? of hundreds if not thousands+ of average Americans who just wanted to represent? Just because he realized that--for him--it was a replacement for feelings he didn't have? That's garbage. Anyway, I've argued this point in too many threads.

 

[RubxQub]

Why did he wear it in the first place? Why, in removing it, did he have to question the patriotism of his fellow Democrats? of hundreds if not thousands+ of average Americans who just wanted to represent? Just because he realized that--for him--it was a replacement for feelings he didn't have? That's garbage. Anyway, I've argued this point in too many threads.

And we've argued the point of Obama's rhetoric being criticized in other threads as well, yet you keep bringing it up.

 

[Tamanon]

What is the meaning of that picture? How is it a smear? Am I supposed to think negatively of Obama because he's wearing traditional African clothing? I'm confused. If the Clinton campaign really did release it then it shows how out of ideas they are.

That's exactly the point, they released it hoping for a virulent overreaction from Obama. Then they could just claim, hey buddy, why the long face?

 

[Kildace]

What is the meaning of that picture? How is it a smear? Am I supposed to think negatively of Obama because he's wearing traditional African clothing? I'm confused. If the Clinton campaign really did release it then it shows how out of ideas they are.

He's wearing muslim clothes. That picture is now going to be featured on each and every "Obama is a muslim" smear e-mail and will make the rumor much harder to disprove among less-educated voters.

 

[APF]

What's wrong with Muslims?