If you want four more years of George bush politics .

That's about as risky as you can get.    

Will we still have a country after four years with a Bush-clone in the Whitehouse?  

Voting for Obama is not a risk.

It's common sense!    

Spin Doctors:   The Republican  Spin Doctors ¹  say that Barack Obama is a riskier candidate than tired, old (seventy-two-year-old)²  senator McCain.   They are paid to tell us that Senator Obama is unknown because he is untested.    

What do they mean by tested?   McCain has been tested and proven to be a Bush-clone.   The Bush-Republicans have been tested and been proven to be rampant with sleaze and corruption.   Spin doctors have been tested and proven to be highly bias and incredible deceptive.  How about asking them what they mean by tested?   Or better yet,  how about the novel idea of defining the word, yourself?

If you don't define the words,  you let your opponents do so and it's their definition or the implications of their definition that sway public opinion and costs you votes.   Let me say this again for the fifteenth time:    

Common sense tells us to look at the concept, "he's been tested," and take it as an endorsement for Barack Obama.    Why?   Because the Bush-Republicans have been tested and found to be the masters of sleaze and corruption.    John McCain has been tested and found to be just another predictable, tired, old, old, Washington politician.   Senator Obama has been tested and is definitely  not  just another predictable,  tired, old,² Washington politician like John McCain who absolutely and certainly is just another predictable, tired, old, old, old, old, seventy-one-year-old, Washington politician.  

And most importantly, Senator Obama has been tested and proven to be an inspiring, dynamic leader with the capacity to bring a divided nation back together again.    

Win at any Cost:   John McCain is adamant about staying in Iraq until we "win the war."²   Does that sound like a rehash of the Viet Nam war?  How long do you suppose we can continue to pull ten billion dollars a mouth our of the American economy to pay for foreign wars.  Tell the voters that it's their gas money, it's their food money, it's their health care money that is being stolen by deficit spending ² and used to continue and an incredible stupid Islamic version of the Viet Nam war.   It was all a lie to begin with, and it was all about oil.   It's now all about admitting the incredibly stupid judgment that got us there,  figuring out the best way to get us back out.  

The financial drain, alone, is far costlier than the grandest benefit of continuing the  war in Iraq -- a war which "Resident" Bush started by lying to everybody who would listen to him -- a war that was incredibly poorly managed -- a war that is pulling resources and attention from critically important other issues such as our economic and environmental crises.    

Tired Old John  

A Spin Doctor is a person whose job is to make something or someone look better than he, she, or it actually is,  or to make an  something or someone look worse than he, she, or it actually is.   A Spin Doctor is a person hired, usually by a politician or by someone who has something to gain by distorting the truth.   Their job is to lie to whomever they are communicating with by omitting vital portions of the truth.   The technique is called a lie of omission.²    Spin Doctors commonly distort the evidence by emphasizing one aspect of a topic or person while completely ignoring anything that contradicts the image they are intending to have the public believe.   Political candidates and those with a political agenda are notorious for peddling spin-doctor distortions of the evidence.

 Lobbyists are spin doctors.   They are  hired by someone who has an agenda to peddle to our legislators.   Unfortunately, they often are parties to legalized bribery, in the form of campaign contributions (and other benefits) to those who vote for their position.   As Will Rogers once said (and its even truer today):   "We have the best politicians that money can buy."

.

Any political campaign strategist with a lick of common sense knows that when their candidate is challenged or labeled with something that distorts the truth, that he (or she) must respond to the accusation.   Failure to challenge the challenger is to give the public the perception that the accusation is actually true.  

The above label stating that "Barack Obama is the riskier candidate"  is a critically important example of this.   As of today, July 26, 2008, the above label is yet to be challenged by the Democratic establishment.   The big question is " Why not?"    

But then, the Democrats don't have sense enough to shift the "abortion" issue to a "forced motherhood"  issue.   They are still peddling personality politics and all but ignore the huge advantage portraying their candidate as the administrative leader of the Democratic team.   They ignore the huge political opportunity to define the word "Conservative" using the "L-word" tactics of the 1988 election.   They also refuse to dump the liberal label.  They've simply given it a new name.  They call themselves progressives.   

Shakespeare gave us the sweet answer to this type of closed minded thinking in the famous line,  "A rose by another name smells just as sweet."  On the other side of the coin, we wonder if those spearheading the democratic campaign would prefer to step in "bovine feces" rather than "bullshit."  

It's Wake Up Time!

.

   Site Map  -  Titles  Only            Site Map  -  Titles + Page Descriptions            Contact Us            Home Page

 http://www.Obama-Obama-Obama.com/riskier-candidate.html#TiredOldJohn

  ...