Wolfson: “I think it is true that every time the Obama campaign in this campaign has attacked Senator Clinton in the worst kind of personal ways, attacked her veracity, attacked her credibility, said that she would say or do anything to get elected, the press has largely applauded him.”
He made a great point. That is also what I have been observing. Lots of criticism, lots of negative comments coming from the Obama side. Interestingly, the liberals in the media never criticize those. On the opposite, the media supports such comments, and improve upon those comments, even if they are not realistic and more-like personal view rather than factual observation. However, when Clinton comes up with a negative criticism, the media attacks those comments, and fights those comments in a way they never fought against the Iraq war. I consider Obama like them. If he were to have a vote regarding the Iraq war, he wouldn't vote against it. That is a given. He would somehow find a way to avoid that. Otherwise, his presidential race career would have ended around that time before it has started.
What can I say, he is one lucky guy, getting the die-hard support of ex-Iraq war supporters...I will repeat what I said before. I trust Hillary's actions more than Obama's actions. Hillary is tested, whatever the others say. Obama is not. You cannot say he will avoid a war if the conditions dictate that way. If there would be another terrorist attack on USA, he will not be able to avoid combat against whomever had some kind of ties with those terrorists. That is the way of living and being a politician in USA. And Obama is a part of that process, not outside of it in the way his supporters promote him.
No comments:
Post a Comment