Georgiann Mansell – 3/30/08

This page was last updated on March 30, 2008.

Obama’s priority is like Bush’s; Georgiann Mansell; Beaver County Times; March 30, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“A Barack Obama telemarketer called me the other day. He didn’t ask for my vote. He didn’t ask for my help. He asked for my money.

“He didn’t tell me what Obama would do for the country or for me, just that he was winning and had more delegates.

“With more than three weeks before the primary election, we are already besieged with Obama ads and told of the millions he has raised, but he still needs more money? To buy even more ads, or to buy more super-delegates by donating to their political committees?

“The first thing Obama did when elected to the U.S. Senate was to create the Hope Fund, a political action committee, to increase his visibility and to raise funds for other Democrats, obligating them to him, thus forwarding his hope of the presidency.”

[RWC] How does this differ from what Hillary Clinton is doing?

“Like Bush, Obama’s priority and expertise is finding his way to your wallet rather than addressing the problems facing us.”

[RWC] How did President Bush get dragged into this? Regarding the claim that President Bush “is finding his way to your wallet,” isn’t he the guy all the lefties dump on because of the so-called “Bush” tax rate cuts? Which is it, folks?

“Obama’s ads tell us how successful he is and that he is not accepting lobbyist money. He doesn’t address the war, the economy, global warming, unemployment, the housing mortgage crisis, health care, education or Social Security.”

[RWC] Actually, if you pay close attention, the ads claim the campaign isn’t accepting Washington lobbyist money. That’s not the same as not accepting any lobbyist money. In any case, it’s BS. Instead of coming directly from PACs and lobbyists, the contributions simply come directly from the same individuals who would have otherwise contributed via a PAC, etc.

“Anyone who is not an Obama supporter must speak carefully lest they be branded a racist, but opposition to a woman is not sexist, just choosing to vote for one is sexist.

“Any negative comment about Obama is an opportunity to whine and cry foul because it might damage the hope of electing a Democratic president.

“Obama isn’t the first man of color to seek a presidential nomination, but Hillary Clinton is the first woman. But of course, as a woman, she should succumb to his ‘success.’

“The political pundits are anxious to see her exit the campaign. After all, women are handmaidens, smoothing the way for men.”

[RWC] I have to admit I’m getting a kick out of watching lefties deal with this primary. One gang says to vote for a candidate because of his skin color, while another says to vote for a candidate because of her sex. These folks do in reality what they always falsely accuse the right of doing.

When Lynn Swann ran for governor in 2006, do you recall anyone saying to vote for him – either in the primary or the general election – because of his skin color?