What else is out there? The vetting process IS important

[2rth2pwr]

Nominating a presidential candidate without a full vetting process could kill

all chances of taking back the White House in Nov.

Why wasn't this PastorGate issue dealt with before he had the lead in delegates?

[leftofcool]

1. There is other stuff out there.........mostly lies of course

[2rth2pwr]

5. Are these videos a lie? nt

[Benhurst]

7. Possibly, but we really don't know. Obama has not been vetted in the way

most politicians have been by the time they get near being nominated for president.

There was nothing on Gore, so they had to invent lies.

There was nothing on Kerry, so they swiftboated his heroic military record.

In Obama's case we have no idea what is or isn't out there. His relationship with Rezko is disturbing (why would he even be a friend of a slum landlord, to say nothing of drawing him into the purchase of his house?) and what is coming out about Pastor Wright is hardly reassuring, given Obama's close relationship with the man.

My biggest fear: the Republicans may be able to slime our candidate this time around without lying.

[SeaLyons]

11. not to mention his friendship with

the "Weatherman". It's amazing that none of this has been vetted, but you can bet the repuks are working on all of it.

[Mooney]

12. "My biggest fear: the Republicans may be able to slime our candidate this time around without lying.

What's the difference?

The Republicans will fling a tsunami of bullshit at our nominee, whoever it ends up being. Whether it's true or not is almost irrelevant. If they can turn Al Gore into a liar or turn John Kerry into a coward who faked his war wounds, they can clearly make anything stick to anybody.

If we let them.

It's not a question of whether or not they have anything on our candidates. It's a question of how that's countered. It's a question of building effective responses to their bullshit and, most importantly, not being afraid of them.

I think losing the last two presidential elections has everyone in our party afraid of their own shadow. We're so afraid of what the Republicans might do that we're willing to let it determine who we support or don't support. It's a good idea to try and figure out in advance what their attacks are going to be so that we're prepared to neutralize them, but we have to stop being so fucking afraid of these people. They're a completely incompetent party who have created every single problem that we're facing today. If we keep the focus on their fuckups, which are legion, and make sure to attach McCain to the twin albatrosses of the war and George W. Bush, they'll be easy to demoralize and crush.

Only we can fuck this up for ourselves. It's ours to lose.

[Benhurst]

13. Morally there is a big difference. Defending a man who has been

falsely accused or maligned is one thing. Covering-up or doing damage control for a man whose actions are at best questionable, is quite another.

[Mooney]

17. For the purposes of smearing a candidate,

it doesn't make any difference if the allegation is true.

These are the same people who were able to characterize Max Cleland as a terrorist sympathizer. PastorGate isn't inflammatory enough to be an effective smear. They'll come up with something much worse, and they'll probably target his black support to do it.

These guys attack their opponents' strengths, not the legitimate stuff. They'll attack Obama's oratory and his support in the black community.

[Benhurst]

20. I was looking it from the point of view of defending a candidate against

lies, as opposed to covering up hurtful truths.

As for the Republican smears, you are right, they will go after our candidate's strengths, as they did with both Gore and Carey.

Unfortunately, this plays a bit into one of Obama's main strengths, his perceived spirituality. And a basic truth exaggerated into a lie has exceptional power.

For some time, I figured if Obama were the nominee, Rove would play it out as John McCain, straight-talking Viet Nam vet, as opposed to fast-talking, flimflam artist non-vet Barack Obama.

His relationship with Wright does not help.

[MojoMojoMojo]

23. You cant neutralize Americans fear and distrust of MiddleEasterners

After 9/11 fear and distrust is ingrained in the American Psyche .We are at war with much of the middle east after all.

[Mooney]

32. The only people who would bring up the Middle Eastern boogey man

are the Republicans. We should never even let them get their issues off the ground in the first place. We should be making them so preoccupied with justifying their colossal fuckups that they never even have a chance to inject their own issues into the equation.

[earthlover]

30. The Republicans won't have to...Hillary is doing their job for them!

Speaking of vetting....isn't it hypocritical and not a little STUUUUUPID to try to say Obama has not been "vetted" when Hillary has not even done such a rudimentary thing as release her friggin tax returns?

Speaking of religion, is Hillary's 15 year membership in The Fellowship, which has several hyper conservative members including a former head of the militant group Operation Rescue being vetted?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

[Benhurst]

35. I think both of them are poor candidates. And I don't like the nutty

religious connections of Clinton, Obama or McCain. McCain for a while there did seem to stand back from his crazier religious supporters, but as of late seems to be drawing closer to the one who has been such a bigot about Catholics.

As for our leading candidates: shame on them both.

We really ought to be able to do better.

[Kittycat]

2. Tax Returns - where are they? 2000-2007

First Lady's papers - where are they?
Library Donor list - where are they?

The pastor is of little concern to me. Potential fraud, pardons, gifts, promises, etc - are.

[MojoMojoMojo]

6. CAN YOU PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC ?YOU ARE PURPOSELY DISRUPTIVE.

This is a serious matter for the GE.You just want your candidate to win at all cost.
I dont want a Republican for the next 8 years.

[Kittycat]

8. You're yelling again. And the topic is vetting and what else might be out there.

I'm right on topic.

Quit being hostile.

[MojoMojoMojo]

25. I GUESS YOURE RIGHT .I APOLOGIZE.

I generally get so pissed off with the diversion tactic of OT chatter.But youre correct sorry.

[Drachasor]

16. I thought we wanted to vett people, I guess you only want to vett Obama...

That said, Obama's pastor only said crazy stuff after 9/11 apparently, and Obama has known him since before 1990. I think Obama's characterization as a relative that says crazy things you don't agree with is the proper response.

[earthlover]

33. the topic is vetting...you can't be vetted without tax returns

and the topic is now hypocrisy of those who follow a non-vetted candidate such as hillary saying someone else is not vetted.

[NDambi]

9. Ha Ha..yeah where are they ..I though Hilda was completely vetted already. Apparently NOT

[cottonseed]

3. Maybe there's nothing there.

I would have expected the Clinton's to destroy Obama earlier instead of destroying the party.

[MojoMojoMojo]

4. Obma needs to show his house transaction information.And shed light on a campaign loan from Auchi

Before he is nominated.DEMAND it.

[anigbrowl]

29. He didn't get a campaign loan from Auchi.

You're full of shit. Sorry, but it's a fact.

[SeaLyons]

10. Obama's free pass

has not served him well. It's going to be ugly.

[Drachasor]

18. Clinton has gotten a free pass on many things, her tax returns for one

[SeaLyons]

19. She will disclose her tax returns

Hillary has been given anything but a free pass. The free pass that's been to Obama is going to slap him in the face.

[Drachasor]

21. Why is she taking her time? 2001-2006 tax returns are a phone call away

Instead she is waiting until the Pennsylvania primary is nearly here, and even then she is only releasing them "around" then. There's no reason for a delay, and yet she is not pressed on it by the media.

And the free pass to Obama is nothing. What do you want them to ask him about? His tiny ties to Rezko that the Chicago Press already vetted him on and of which there is zero evidence of any wrong-doing (can you say "Whitewater")? His pastor that he has already denounced and for most of Obama's time in the Church has said nothing offensive? Seriously, the best attacks against Obama pretty much amount to slander and hearsay -- there's no STORY there.

Edit: Let me add that in her first run as a Senator she said it was suspicious not to release tax returns when her opponent didn't release his. Since then, however, she hasn't released any. It would be nice if she stood by the standards she espoused.

[SeaLyons]

26. I don't think the republicans

will agree with you with regards to NO STORY on Obama. Story or not, it will be a BIG story when they get going.

[Drachasor]

31. Are you saying you are acting like a republican? Also you ignored my point about tax returns

So you've got nothing, do ya?

[Kittycat]

22. When - we've been waiting. 2000-2006, then 2007 when ready.

Library donor lists
Her papers

- I don't trust they've been above board, at least not with what's coming out on bill already. There's a lot we need to vett there with little time.

[SeaLyons]

24. I think you better be looking

at your candidates vetting. The Clintons are old hands at that political game. Obama is the one that needs vetting.

[Kittycat]

27. That's okay, I'm cool with my candidate. It's yours that does dirty business

With foreigners and questionable private stock trade deals on failing companies.

[SeaLyons]

28. ..

your cool, I'm cool.....

that's great!!

:toast:

[Drachasor]

34. Except you don't seem to have anything to vett Obama on, and Hillary was last vetted 7 years ago

You can say "I was vetted 7 to 20 years ago so I don't need to be vetted anymore". Her recent history is not vetted, and she is unwilling to release her tax records. She's also unwilling to release White House records. Where's the transparency? Her claim that she is vetted is a red herring.

[elixir]

14. K&R. This one's for BigTree.

[Vinca]

15. What about Rupert Murdoch's photos? What more is out there? nt