Ben said...


As someone who has been covering up tracking points on video for the past 3 hours today (and 15 odd hours this past week) and who has recently become reasonably adept with the photoshop, this is clearly bogus.

I'm no master, but if you enlarge this image, or look at it closely, you'll notice some pretty jagged markings in the blue above the "We can believe in" and above the layer of "Beliefs". I'm sure someone who knows this kind of thing better than I, could do a more thorough debunking. A quick google search shows I'm not the only one. An NRO gimp says about the photo, "I'm pretty sure this is photoshopped, but either way it says volumes about Obama's vapid sloganeering"


May I ask, is this where you got the image?

Now, I take for granted that all sloganeering is kinda vapid, Obama's kind isn't out of the ordinary in this regard. He's a politician. As it's becoming clear, he's a pretty adept one. But this brand of critique is lame and kinda pathetic. For Mr. Hemingway to point out that the saying in question is vapid even though he acknowledges that it probably doesn't exist is absurd. If I were to guess, the point of this obfuscation seems to be to get the image out there and legitimize it spite of it's falsity.

Anonymous said...

And Obama wouldn't make "beliefs" a selling point because in order to have "beliefs" one must take a clear position.

If Obama takes a clear position he could no longer be that blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

Yes it's probably fake.

Anonymous said...

I suppose it truly is a feat of political mastery to run on a platform of “change” representing oneself as a different sort of politician that will resist the pull of political expediency, then take political triangulation to new heights that would make William Jefferson burn with envy while managing to suggest critics who notice this contradiction as na├»ve.

Like Clinton I think a lot of people are latching onto the one desirable facet of Obama that they like without considering the obvious contradictions that may exists in other peoples perspective’s of him. The media has generally let him get away with these inconsistencies with the same rational you employed: He's an adept politican.

The real question is that if you admit that much of Obama’s persona is effective marketing how can you have any idea of what it is you’re buying into?

Joe said...

I think Obama's position is pretty clear on many key issues. He's gonna push for higher taxes on rich people, expanding access to health insurance for poor people, alternative energy investment, a relatively quick withdrawal from Iraq, NCLB reform, and more diplomatic engagement.

I think it's pointless to put too much stock in the specifics of any candidate's plans, cause when the sausage making starts, everything's gonna get changed around anyway. I'm looking at general policy leanings and priorities, and more than that, intelligence and character.

The President's job is basically to find and listen to experts and, when they disagree, to decide which ones are right and which are full of shit. That requires intelligence, a wide breadth of knowledge and experience, and backbone. I think Obama has these, based on his background and his performance in the campaign so far.

Anonymous said...

Obama’s positions on healthcare (move towards nationalization), taxes(let dubya’s cuts lapse), teachers(more pay/less accountability) is pretty much standard democratic boilerplate; positions he would need to maintain just to make it through the primary. I hardly think these stand out as meriting a profile in courage.

Iraq, where he made the most hay against Hillary, is somewhat more interesting.

Position 1
America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq. That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity," he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to "a slap in the face" to the troops fighting there, he said.

Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

"If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," he said.

Position 2
Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Position 3
As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year's negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

You can watch:


Joe said...

I don't see any giant contradictions in those statements.

He has said all along that our problem with Iraq is that it was a strategic blunder to invade in the first place. And he's said all along that he's gonna pull troops out in a relatively rapid fashion to focus on Afghanistan. Whether that's 6 months or 2 years doesn't seem to me to be that significant of an issue.

He's catching flak for saying that he'll consult with military leaders about troop withdrawal. How ridiculous! Any leader is going to pursue their strategic vision while adapting to new information.

I'm personally pretty ambivalent about the Iraq issue, and thus have a hard time getting fired up about any of the crappy options there. I'm not that excited about Obama's plan, but then again, I'm not excited about any other plan either.

But, sound policy and consistency are different issues. I think Obama has been pretty consistent with his overall plan. Now, if he really does start talking about permanent bases there, I won't gripe if you cry flip flop.

I'm sure Obama will run to the center a bit, just like every politician, and I don't blame you for criticizing that move, given the "new politics" image he's cultivated, but I think you're exaggerating the extent of that swing.

And speaking of triangulation and pandering, what about that "Maverick" McCain? I think his policy shifts and disingenuous image crafting are AT LEAST as pronounced as Obama's.

Anonymous said...

I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile position 1 which is McCain's position with position 2 which is unconditional withdrawal with position 3 which is really some gutless point in between that cannot easily be defined.

The reality of the situation is that for the sake of political expediency, and by virtue of having nearly no legislative record to speak of Obama planted his stake in the ground just a few inches to the right of Edwards on Iraq and rode the democratic base to a primary victory. Now that the situation in Iraq has changed he is seeking to not make Iraq an issue and adopt as politically safe position as possible.

For you to claim that his Iraq policy is “sound” is ridiculous. The only reason his original withdrawal plan appears so prescient now is because of the surge he so forcefully opposed. He’s like a crank homeopathic doctor trying to take credit for curing someone’s cancer after receiving 3 rounds of chemotherapy.

As for McCain, he took very unpopular stands on the surge and immigration which almost drove him out of the race. He certainly hasn't been 100% consistant but your contention that he's anywhere near Obama seems uninformed.

Anonymous said...

Here’s another example of pandering(and self aggrandizement)::

Obama, apparently desirous to give an example of him sticking to his guns to Indiana voters recounts the following:

We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president.*

Analysts from both sides believe that Obama is in trouble in Michigan so he announced his support of the following:


Obama pledged support for low-interest loans to automakers, saying, "America cannot truly prosper unless Michigan prospers."

…$3.75 billion in funding for loans, which could provide up to $25 billion that automakers and parts suppliers could use for revamping old factories and engineering new models. The loans would be made directly from the U.S. Treasury to automakers at below-market interest rates. The funding would cover the government's borrowing costs.

Don’t get this guy angry folks, he might buy you a pony.

*In reality he got a standing ovation:

Ben said...

I do appreciate the increase of activity. However, with that, can we please, for the sake of cogency, start a post for each new indictment, so that each charge may be addressed, or not, in turn? Besides, however much this kind of content deeply irritates me, the more posts, the merrier.

Many thanks,
The management