Putting lipstick on the pig, dressing it up as a right-winger

[Tylergal]

The rebranding of Barack Obama

44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama bills himself as a new brand of leader poised to drain Washington's swamp of political cynicism.

But despite spellbinding calls for "Change We Can Believe In" the Democratic hopeful is not shirking from cold-eyed positioning to boost his hopes of victory over Republican White House hopeful John McCain.

Obama has turned down the crowd-swooning oratory since beating Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination last month.

The Illinois senator has switched to a general election strategy, making a beeline for the fabled political center, with policy adjustments, tonal shifts and speeches extolling faith and patriotism.

Obama's advisors also seem to be maneuvering for room on Iraq, after his anti-war stance and calls for immediate troop withdrawals underpinned his primary triumph.

"This is typical in presidential campaigns, to run with more extreme positions in primaries, and then to slowly drift to the center to appeal to the greatest number of voters in a general election," said political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

"I think for Obama it is especially crucial, because to some extent he can't run away from his record, which is one of the most liberal voting records in Congress," said Panagopoulos, of Fordham University, New York.

Obama worried liberals by blurring previous positions last week to back a Supreme Court rejection of a ban on handguns in the city of Washington.

He also went back on an undertaking to accept public financing for his campaign -- a move which courted criticism but kept his multi-million dollar fundraising juggernaut rolling.

Obama also sided with conservative Supreme Court justices, who liberals revile, against a majority ruling that child rapists cannot be executed.

But the finessing has not been pain free.

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page this week mockingly declared Obama wanted "Bush's Third Term."

"Most presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr Obama isn't merely running to the center," the paper said.

"Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?"

McCain backers accuse Obama of making craven calculations at odds with his reformist rhetoric.

Some liberals are also dismayed.

Fierce debate broke out on Obama's own website, after he switched course and backed a new spying bill offering immunity to telecoms firms which cooperated in electronic eavesdropping.

"Obama has made a few moves that are really disappointing," wrote one poster named "Elisabeth."

"The higher the hopes, the harder to fall and many of us have dared to hope higher than ever before in our lifetimes."

A sense that the inspiration might be waning, prompting liberal blogger Arianna Huffington to warn Obama not to follow a centerist shift she said helped doom Democrat John Kerry in 2004.

"A political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder."

But could liberals have erred in making Obama a vehicle for unsated political hopes?

For instance, his pledge to update President George W. Bush's faith-based social work program sits easily with Obama's vow to cross political lines and court evangelicals who often vote Republican.

And in the past, Obama has faced claims his stirring rhetoric hides a paucity of policy "beef."

"That kind of thing needs to be used selectively, there are times when it might be brilliantly effective, a convention speech for example," said Professor Bruce Buchanan, of the University of Texas.

"There are other times when it is just an easy mark for critics like Hillary first, and then McCain talking about 'all these nice high sounded words but they don't mean much.'"

The old cliche that politics is the art of the possible may also apply.

What use is beautiful rhetoric if Obama can't get elected? In that light, positions palatable to conservative white Democrats in battleground states, on guns for instance, might be prudent.

Obama may now be stressing those of his views more attractive to centrists, wavering Republicans and independents, just as he emphasized areas where he agreed with liberals in the primary.

And he can probably rely on disgruntled liberals not to vote McCain.

Washington Post 7/3/08

[caesu]

can't you not make one single thread with your plethora of copy-paste second-hand information?

[Tylergal]

Oh, I see our little piece of human excrement is here today, saying what I post is bullshit although I have taken this from the mainstream media with documentation.  Can this little marxist pile of doodoo not stay over at HuffingandPuffing Post.

[caesu]

then at least try to post a source link.

and maybe try to make more civilized sentences if you can.
the amount you copy-paste can't hide the fact that when you type something on your own it is usually factually wrong or filled with remarks that can be perceived as offensive as the are mostly related to excrement or mentally handicapped people.

[Tylergal]

Get your brain in gear, Caseu.  It is sourced.  Or is Washington Post not a source?  Many think so.  Caseu, you have taught me what I always believed, that liberalism thinking inhibits mental exercise.  You troglodytes need to read more sources than "In the tank for OBAMA."

[caesu]

ok, then i do it for you if it is to difficult for you to understand what i mean.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gk4b-xI064BIO5ILe3zsO0pPqwNA

and the source is not Washington Post but AFP.

[Tylergal]

It came from AFP via Washington Post to my box.  Do you not understand about AFP and AP? and how they work, how one reporter can write a story and syndicates run stories through other papers?  Is that something about capitalism that you have not grasped yet?

[caesu]

yes, so source is AFP not Washingnton Post like i said.
next time provide source link i suggest.

[Tylergal]

yes, so source is AFP not Washingnton Post like i said.
next time provide source link i suggest.

When I am asked by Red to provide a source, I will.  I did not do it because you asked, you sniveling little pile of rat excrement.

WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE?  SINCE WHEN ARE THESE KIND OF ATTACKS OK?

[caesu]

yes, so source is AFP not Washingnton Post like i said.
next time provide source link i suggest.

When I am asked by Red to provide a source, I will.  I did not do it because you asked, you sniveling little pile of rat excrement.

could you cut down on the excrement remarks. you've got a very foul mouth.
if you were brought up in some kind of gutter i understand that you lack the ability to express yourself in a more civilized manner.

i don't mind your remarks anyway - it only proofs my points that you don't have anything more intelligent to respond so you resort to excrement and other B.S.

[LouiseVargas]

Tyler,

You have no class whatsoever. It was made evident in this thread.

[klaasend]

Tylergal - no need to resort to name calling.  Just because Caesu has a different political belief than you doesn't make it OK to call him/her names. 

I will start deleting posts that include name calling whoever does it!

[LouiseVargas]

Quote from Tyler: "When I am asked by Red to provide a source, I will.  I did not do it because you asked, you sniveling little pile of rat excrement."

TYLER, I HAVE REPORTED YOUR POSTS TO RED AND SENT HIM COPIES.

[nonesuche]

Good deal Louise, next time you feel the urge to post about the 100+ sexual encounters you've had on a public community forum I hope you will understand when I send copies to SM's leadership asking for your posts to be edited. Honestly I found that pretty offensive as well.

[casa]

Tylergal - no need to resort to name calling.  Just because Caesu has a different political belief than you doesn't make it OK to call him/her names. 

I will start deleting posts that include name calling whoever does it!

Klaas, Tyler may have called Caseu a name but did you notice how he attacked her and her post first?  Is there some reason that we have resorted to allowing some to insult and others cannot?  Are we so desperate to have someone Dutch posting here that we will insult long time posters?  I am in no way connected to either poster but see a wrong when it is evident. Everyone should be treated equally in my opinion which I know is not worth much. 

[caesu]

@casa:

can you not make one single thread with your plethora of copy-paste second-hand information?

nobody has to agree with me but i think to make for each article a single thread it is not very practical.
http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?board=5.0
how is that an attack or insult? 

as for my responses after that to her insults: these are just reactions to those.
i think they were quite modest from my side compared to hers.

i also would want her to stay. i don't mind her insults one bit. but i will respond to them.
i prefer to read opposing opinions above opinions i agree with.
i could read all day opinions i agree with to confirm my own opinion but i don't need that confirmation.