Sign of the times - Caption under picture of naked man arrested at Obama's Philadelphia rally:
Campaign commentary: A police officer tries to protect the naked man's modesty with a strategically placed 'Vote 2010' signPerfect use, in my opinion, of Obama propaganda at a rally intended to give the administration cover when they invariably lose in November. Who will they blame? Before you say Bush, because there is plenty of that here too, the loss will be laid in the laps of the voters Obama supposedly came to woo:
'I think the pundits are wrong. I think we're going to win. But you've got to prove them wrong,' Mr Obama said, jabbing his finger toward the audience.Now on to the Bush/Republican bashing:
'They're counting on you staying home. If that happens they win.'
"There are three million Americans who would not be working again if not for the economic plan Joe and I put in place, that's the truth," President Obama told a crowd in Philadelphia.Obama seems to have spared the crowd his Slurpee-sipping saga but that didn't stop him from whining. Obama began with a litany of baseless accusations and fear mongering over who is funding the Republicans' in the race to November. This was the toned-down version my fellow Slurpee sippers:
"The hole we're climbing out of is so deep. The Republicans messed up so bad, left such a big mess, that there is [sic] still millions of Americans without work," he added.
Mr. Obama has increasingly turned to the issue of campaign finance to motivate his supporters as the elections grow nearer and the polls remain bad for Democrats. With his party outmatched in advertising sponsored by groups that do not have to disclose their donors under a Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year, Mr. Obama has suggested that the sponsors of campaign advertising have sinister motivations.Notice the not-so subtle editorializing by the New York Times- shocking I know - as if only Republicans were affected by the Supreme Court decision. I am no legal expert but I highly doubt the Supreme Court ruling said only groups sponsoring Republican ads don't have to disclose their donors. And really, since when did Republicans have the money edge in this election anyway? Haven't we been told repeatedly tales of the massive campaign war chests that gave Democrats a fighting chance? Since when is Soros and the SEIU suddenly rendered silent by the Supreme Court ruling? Oh yeah, they're not.
“You don’t know,” he said here. “It could be the oil industry, it could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose. Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy.”
Still, in saying it “could” be foreign corporations, Mr. Obama softened his language from last week after the original assertion was disputed, and was more equivocal than a new Democratic National Committee advertisement that asserts the involvement of overseas money more directly. The advertisement attacks the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, two former aides to President George W. Bush who have helped groups supporting Republican candidates.
But let's not forget who was a pro at funding his campaign with suspicious money. As Karl Rove said:
“‘Have these people no shame?’ Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies? This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this?’It is perfectly clear this Naked Emperor has absolutely no shame at all. Someone cover his sorry behind with some strategically placed propaganda. Where's Tingles Matthews when you need him?
Much more on this at Memeorandum