The Latest 'Moving the Bar' for Obama

Well, covering for Senator Straight Talk at every turn on his gaffe's and missteps, hasn't exactly helped him in the polling. Helping push the 'Obama is an Uppity N$*%er' memo hasn't done it either.

I wear the tinfoil hat, and am not ashamed of it. The MSM has been covering for McCain at every turn, and has tried to find every fault they could with Barack Obama. Because, as others have said, and I agree, it's in their best interest to make this a horserace, and whatever they have to do in order to get it is what they'll do.

So, after spending the last month covering for McCain and hounding Obama, they wanted the results to fit the narrative they've been trying to shape.

But, when the latest polls come out, and Obama is still in the same position that he was in a month ago - IN THE LEAD - well, that just won't do.

So, of course, they have to ' move the bar'.

Anyone Black understands what 'move the bar' means.

It's not just that Obama is leading. And, that his lead has held. The latest scam is:

WHY DOESN'T OBAMA LEAD MORE?

Watched this entire farce on MSNBC yesterday, but it's not just MSNBC. This is the companion Meme of the MSM against Obama these days.

Now, isn't that special. He just can't be consistently leading in the polls. He has to be leading by a certain MARGIN in order to be legitimate.

When it came out that Obama was leading McCain by 10 points amongst, 'hard working Americans, White Americans', they could barely spit it out, not knowing how they could spin that against Obama, so, of course, they got OFF that poll point as fast as they could.

It's not that I'm surprised by this. I'm not. After all, the media full and wholeheartedly participated in the farce that was the ' supposed Democratic race', post-Wisconsin. Always going along with whatever BS moving of the bar Camp Hillpatine came up with, and acting as if it was legitimate.

Just pointing out some more of the forest.

Do You Doubt MSM Bias? This Maliki Statement Should Settle That

Just in case you didn't know, the Iraqi PRIME MINISTER - Nouri al-Maliki - has, in essence, given his stamp of approval to Senator Barack Obama's Iraqi Withdrawal Timetable.

I will repeat, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, has stated, by name, his support of Senator Barack Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Timetable.

From Daily Dish:

What Maliki Said
20 Jul 2008 10:34 pm
By Patrick Appel
The NYT gets ahold of the audio:

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Does it get more clear than that?

Now, riddle me this, Ladies and Gentlemen, considering that this war has cost the USA:
1. Nearly 1 TRILLION dollars
2. Over 4,000 lives
3. Tens of thousands permanently maimed
4. Our status in the world community
5. ANY leg to stand on in the Arab World

Wouldn't the statement of the head of the government of Iraq supporting, CLEARLY, the plan of ONE of the U.S. Presidential Candidates...

BE
a) FRONT PAGE NEWS
b) LEADING EVERY NEWSCAST?

Or, is it just me?

There are those who say that the tinfoil hat wearers just are 'too sensitive'.....

But, is this news, or is it my imagination that this is MAJOR news?

Oh rikyrah, you mean like,
a) John McCain flip flopping on his stance in Afghanistan and basically agreeing to Barack Obama's position
b) After being mocked and ridiculed for being 'naive' and ' dangerous', the United States taking up BARACK OBAMA'S POSITION and entering into meetings with IRAN?
c) That, for the first time, after it was labeled ' cut and run', and ' losing the war', the Bush Administration has agreed to a timeframe for withdrawal..

Silly me...I thought these were HUGE stories, seeing as it's a sea change for the GOP, and, what, oh yes, basically validates everything Senator Barack Obama has been saying in the foreign policy realm for YEARS.

But, I thought Obama was the 'gamble' when it comes to foreign policy, yet, everyone seems to be coming around to HIS positions? What does that say?

And, why isn't this getting the play in the media that it should?

I dunno readers, could it be that the ONLY area in which John McCain has a discernable edge over Obama is the ' foreign policy', ' Commander-In-Chief' Threshhold...and, if these stories were reported in say, the way that BITTERGATE, REV. WRIGHT, were reported, then the last hope for John McCain would go by the wayside?

What, rikyrah, are you saying that the MSM is being complicit in UNDER/NOT reporting these major stories because they would benefit Senator Obama?

My answer to that would be - the Democratic Party Pledged Delegate race was OVER the night of the WISCONSIN PRIMARY - yet, was it my imagination, or were they complicit in the smoke and mirrors of Camp Hillpatine until MAY?

I'm not alone in this tinfoil hat observation. From Politicalinaction.com:

Media Withholding Favorable Obama Polls:

ABC withheld information favorable to Barack Obama last week when it released its latest poll. They withheld the actual results of the poll which had Obama winning 50-42 over McCain if the election was held tomorrow. The did however release the number we have been hearing about for a week....that 70% of people see McCain as commander and chief like while only 50% see Obama that way.

The Commander and Chief Test....ABC Cheated

Remember, all the moronic finance teams that budgeted for 2008, and predicted Clinton-McCain or Guiliani battle, expected HUGE fall revenues from advertisements from the intense political interest. They expected a bloodbath which would in turn mean higher revenues. If it is a blowout, they don't get paid and their companies lose a lot of money. THEY CAN'T, FINANCIALLY, LET OBAMA WIN THIS IN A WALK, and they will do everything they can to prevent it.

And, if you want analysis of what the Maliki statement means for McCain, they explain it well over at Daily Dish...

Here's further explanation from Chuck Todd on Meet The Press (notice how useless shill David Gregory tries to parrot GOP talking points).

Though my favorite reaction is from a GOP strategist:

We're fucked.

Obama's Poll Numbers: Look Beyond the MSM

Frank Rich's column today is very interesting.

In discussing the Obama/McCain race, Rich brings forth the following points about the latest polls, since Senator Straight Talk is pushing hard for Hillpatine's female followers:

But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters — beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey.

How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11.

Now, let's go over this again. Obama's leading anywhere from 13-19 points, which is better then BOTH the previous Democratic Candidates for President, yet somehow, this point seems to be getting lost in translation. After all, if Obama is doing better than the 2 previous Democratic Candidates - two White guys - then, how could the MSM pimp their memo that Obama has a problem with ' working White people'. Then how could they pimp the ' does he need Hillpatine as VP 'memo?

The real question is how Mr. McCain and his press enablers could seriously assert that he will pick up disaffected female voters in the aftermath of the brutal Obama-Clinton nomination battle. Even among Democrats, Mr. Obama lost only the oldest female voters to Mrs. Clinton.

Oh Mr. Rich, the same way the 'press enablers', though Chuck Todd announced the night of the Wisconsin Primary that it wasn't mathematically possible for Hillpatine to catch Obama in Pledged Delegates, they went right along with the moving of the goalposts, perpetrating the fraud that she could actually win the nomination by any way other than THIEVERY.

If they told the truth - that NO White Democratic candidate has gotten a majority of the White vote since 1964, then Obama not having it wouldn't look so bad, would it? If they told the truth, that Obama led with White women (by 7 points) - I thought it was bogus for them to leave out that he led among White women, but trailed among suburban White women. Maybe it's just me, but have they've really done that before - suburban White women as a category? If they told the truth - that though he was losing White men by 20 points, it was BETTER THAN Kerry (25 points) or Gore (24 points), then, gasp, where would their narrative of the Black guy's in trouble go?

Mr. Rich also points out the following:

“NBC Nightly News” was so focused on these supposedly devastating Obama shortfalls that there was no mention that the Democrat beat Mr. McCain (and outperformed Mr. Kerry) in every other group that had been in doubt: independents, Catholics, blue-collar workers and Hispanics. Indeed, the evidence that pro-Clinton Hispanics are flocking to Mr. McCain is as nonexistent as the evidence of a female stampede. Mr. Obama swamps Mr. McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent — a disastrous G.O.P. setback, given that President Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, according to exit polls. No wonder the McCain campaign no longer lists its candidate’s home state of Arizona as safe this fall.

If looking at this poll, wouldn't this stick out to you? All the DIFFERENT groups where Obama is leading at this point? But, very little notice to this, and obsessing over the ' White Suburban Women'.


Final point of reference:

There are many ways that Mr. Obama can lose this election. But his 6-percentage-point lead in the Journal-NBC poll is higher than Mr. Bush’s biggest lead (4 points) over Mr. Kerry at any point in that same poll in 2004.

Let's repeat that:

There are many ways that Mr. Obama can lose this election. But his 6-percentage-point lead in the Journal-NBC poll is higher than Mr. Bush’s biggest lead (4 points) over Mr. Kerry at any point in that same poll in 2004.

Lesson for today: don't fall for the MSM's complicitness in hyping Senator Straight Talk. If you see a poll come out, search through it; search those crosstabs for the REAL STORY. Perpetrating frauds is GOOD FOR BUSINESS for them....for reference, just look at the Primary ' Race', post Wisconsin.