Obama is the "negative" candidate

The most effective thing that can be done to reach the disenfranchised Clintonistas and the Independents besides nominating Palin as McCain’s veep is to show Obama for the negative candidate that he is. Portraying the GOP candidates as “negative” or “corrupt” has become standard playbook material for the Democrats, and Obama is getting away with it.

The Clintonistas slow to return to the party and refrain “PUMA” know of Obama’s negativity and negative politicking. They are disgusted by his claims to a different type of politics all the while playing dirty. Like many liberal claims that would really be something if they were true, we must show Obama’s claim to a different type of politics for the hypocrisy it is. Independents love “optimism” and “positive politics” and the MSM is eager to define it. But consider the overwhelming evidence that Obama is the “negative” candidate and McCain is the “positive” candidate:

  1. Let’s start with Obama. He begins with this oft repeated promise “we will not run any negative ads”:

(not sure if youtube video clip copied through)

  1. Then, Obama gives Clinton the finger to the amusement of the crowd and of himself when talking about her criticisms of himself. Has every independent seen this yet?

  2. Then he went negative on the voters themselves, stating to a group of approving San Francisco elitists that small town people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This sentiment he echoed a few days later stating: “Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch? No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. … People are fed up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter.”

3b. Since Obama has stated the person he would most listen to in the White House for policy advice is his wife, I think its fair game to point out her similar negative views of the American voters as:

“just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime.”

On another occasion, Michelle Obama similiarly ranted, “We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. … Sometimes it is easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America.” This followed up a few days after the infamous San Fran speech in which Obama clarified the couple’s thoughts as “Sometimes it is easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance.”

  1. Now the Reverend Wright is way too easy a target. It is fair game because it is the man Obama listened to in the pews for 20 years before he stopped going to church. Its the man whose style he emulated, whose sermon title became Obama’s book title and meal ticket, where he got his start in politics, who married him and his wife, etc..

But when talking about which candidate is positive, its not the rantings of the man Obama threw under the bus after promising he could never do that anymore than disowning his own grandmother (who is the person whose advice he would second most value in the White House according to his recent assertion at the Saddleback Forum). The real story is that McCain has not gone there. Not only did McCain not go there, McCain has effectively stopped the rest of us from going there. He changed the conversation into one based on the issues.

Has he ridiculed Obama’s bad ideas? Of course. We all have. But he stayed on the issues, which is something Obama cannot do. Obama seems to need to personally attack his opponents.

  1. When not flicking Senator Clinton off, Obama has made fun of her. Calling her essentially a fake when he suggested she was pretending “to be some type of Annie Oakley.”

  2. How about Obama’s repeated use in his stump speech of thoroughly discredited comments that slews of fact-checkers denounced regarding McCain’s 100 year war comment? Clearly out of context.

Then, at Saddleback, McCain joked that a rich person made more than $5 million a year – then immediately said he was kidding and that somebody would probably take that out of context. And of course, Obama and team did. As recently as a few hours ago, Obama’s campaign manager was on national TV touting this comment and the number of houses McCain has (erroneously, as his wife owns the houses). Obama and his team have repeatedly sought to take this comment out of context, despite McCain saying in the same breath that he did not think the threshhold for rich people was 5 million.

  1. Obama’s aide called Hillary a “monster” and he doesn’t even bother to refute it.

  2. Obama continually plays the race card, and the victim card. He states that people might not vote for him because he does not look like other Presidents (which even his campaign manager admitted referred to race), accused Hillary of playing the race card, accused Bill Clinton of playing the race card, accused McCain and team of playing the race card. Then, as victim-in-chief, Obama defends his welshing on his promise to take public funds on the grounds of the GOP attack machine and 527s who are attacking him. All the while, there was no 527 wave of attacks against Obama whatsoever.

  3. Obama has backtracked on every specific detail he had pledged as evidence of his “positive, new politics.”

He pledged to take public funds and went further than any other candidate in vowing to vigorously pursue an agreement with the GOP candidate to do the same. Then McCain made that pledge, then Obama reneged. Obama pledged he would not spend money on the city political machinery of Philadelphia as that was old school politics, yet he has reversed and now down exactly that. He promised not to run negative ads, but he has. He pledged not to make a publicity stunt out of visiting the troops, then visited the troops for photo ops but failed to spend time with them or visit the wounded, despite that being on his schedule. The whole trip occurred after his NYT piece “my plan for Iraq” which made an all too obvious lie out of his indication he would listen to the advice of the commanders on the ground.

  1. McCain, by contrast, has run an issues-centric campaign. Yes, there was the Paris Hilton / Britney Spears ad. But this raised a legitimate point concerning Obama’s cult of personality.

McCain has not been hitting Obama on his associations with Reverend Wright.

McCain has not been hitting Obama on his associations with Bill Ayers, close friend and convicted terrorist.

McCain has not been hitting Obama on race, despite constant complaints from the MSM and Obama surrogates that this would be the real reason someone might vote against him.

McCain reached out to Obama and invited him to do 10 town halls to focus the campaign on the issues, which Obama has failed to do. That would have made for a truly historic campaign.

We have the positive, issues-focused candidate. Obama is the old world negative politician.