Laugh of the day: Obama blames McCain for messianic imagery

posted at 12:30 pm on August 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier, I linked to the CBN interview David Brody conducted with Barack Obama to point out the Democrat’s continued untruthfulness on the infanticide-prevention measure that Obama opposed in the Illinois legislature.  In reading one other portion of the interview transcribed by Brody, Obama accuses John McCain of deliberately targeting him with both messianic and anti-Christ imagery in an attempt to impugn his character:

Brody: Let me ask you a little about some of these ads that John McCain has been running not just on television, but on the web. Let’s face it, let’s call a spade a spade, there has been some Messianic references, there’s been some antichrist stuff going on, the celebrity, they’re trying to pigeonhole you a certain way. Do you believe this is being done on purpose?

Obama: Well of course it’s being done on purpose. They’re not spending a whole bunch of money to make me out as a good guy. They’re engaging in the kind of politics that I think we’ve become accustomed to which is you try to tear your opponents down and you engage in sort of slash and burn tactics. And very personal sort of personal character attacks. And one of the challenges for us in this campaign is how do you make sure those attacks are answered quickly and forcefully, but also truthfully and that we don’t fall into that same kind of tactic.

Obama doesn’t fall into the same tactic?  Really? How about on June 21st in Jacksonville, when he accused McCain of preparing racist attacks on him?

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

Or perhaps July 30, when Obama claimed that McCain had already begun racist attacks:

“They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”

As for the anti-Christ imagery, no one can actually point to anything coming from the McCain campaign, except for Obama’s own logo coming out of a sunset in one commercial poking fun at his celebrity, which apparently resembles the cover art from Tim LaHaye’s rapture-based Left Behind novel series.  On the charges of racism, Dan Balz notes that the Obama campaign cannot produce a single example from either the McCain campaign or the RNC.  Obama hasn’t let a lack of evidence keep him from perptuating his smear campaign against John McCain — which means he’s doing exactly what he claims here that he isn’t.

Besides, who was it that came up with these images?  They didn’t come from McCain supporters:

As far as I know, it wasn’t McCain that had women fainting at his feet in a series of campaign events.  And McCain didn’t write the speech in which Obama claimed that his nomination was the moment “the oceans began to recede and the planet began to heal”:

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

McCain didn’t invent Obama’s arrogance.  He’s merely having a lot of fun pointing it out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

If you were a Republican congressman would you be more likely to vote against and criticize a Republican President or a Democrat President?

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 1:28 AM

If I were a Congressman, I’d evaluate the decisions made independent of the party affiliation of the proponent – indeed, independent of the proponent. But I recognize that this does not apply to actual Congressman, so your point remains.

Math_Mage on August 18, 2008 at 1:49 AM

A very good way to keep getting bad choices. I can’t think of any better way actually.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 1:43 AM

Um, voting for the worse of two alternatives would definitely be a better way to keep getting bad choices…and not voting at all would ensure that you had no say in the choices you get.

In a perfect world, the Republican Party would care that you didn’t vote. In the real world, only those who show up get to influence events.

Math_Mage on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 AM

It’s a lot different as I made clear in my question. The “issue” was does one somehow have to choose between two unacceptable choices, not how unacceptable they were.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 1:46 AM

But that assumes they are perfectly equal in unacceptability, which is only true if you know nothing about what the candidates stand for.

For starters, one will have control of a Congress with a 9% approval rating and enough of a margin to make all his unacceptable ideas permanent law.

Chuck Schick on August 18, 2008 at 1:57 AM

America elects adults to POTUS. I really wouldn’t worry this time out. The Dhimmis are ALWAYS a gazillion points ahead in the polls during the summer. Right now the two are tied. That spells total annihilation for BHO come November.

Mojave Mark on August 18, 2008 at 2:37 AM

But America also always elects the tallest candidate as POTUS, Mojave.

Ba news for 5’6″ McCain.

Which old wives tale do you believe?

alphie on August 18, 2008 at 2:41 AM

In the real world, only those who show up get to influence events.

Math_Mage on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Wrong as an election can well turn on party turn out or lack of same.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 2:49 AM

But that assumes they are perfectly equal in unacceptability, which is only true if you know nothing about what the candidates stand for.

I already know too much about what the candidates stand for.

For starters, one will have control of a Congress with a 9% approval rating and enough of a margin to make all his unacceptable ideas permanent law.

Chuck Schick on August 18, 2008 at 1:57 AM

I don’t know where this 9% keeps coming from as RCP says 19.3%. RCP also says that Democrats are ahead (“generically”) of Republicans 49.3% to 37.5%.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 2:53 AM

Wrong as an election can well turn on party turn out or lack of same.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 2:49 AM

Ah, sorry, you’re right – you can influence an ELECTION by not showing up. That’s my mistake. But can you influence a party? Are the Republicans going to see low Republican turnout and say, “oh, we’re sorry, we’ll be more like you guys in the future”? Or are they going to say, “well, those hard conservative voters just don’t show up to vote, so we’ll just have to attract more Independents next election”? And if they don’t know why you didn’t show up, how are they going to bring you back?

I guess what I’m saying is, whether you vote or not isn’t going to send a message to anybody – or if it does, it probably won’t be the one you intended (as above). Instead of hoping your absence will be an appropriate mailman, it might be wiser to find another way to express your dissatisfaction with the Republican Party (a more effective way), while voting for whoever you find to be the better of the two candidates.

Math_Mage on August 18, 2008 at 3:18 AM

Which old wives tale do you believe?

alphie on August 18, 2008 at 2:41 AM

I would never use that term. It’s demeaning to women.

Squiggy on August 18, 2008 at 6:05 AM

I don’t “fear” an Obama presidency. We are too strong a country for that and he is too big a moron to cause any significant damage to this wonderful republic! He’s a small man with a small mind who will accomplish small things! McCain on the other hand is a liberal Republican who I simply cannot get excited about. As a conservative he has done nothing to inspire me! At every turn he has stuck his thumb in my eye. If you don’t get this then you aren’t a conservative. That’s ok but stop denigrating us. That’s the problem with the Republican party right now! And the reason that many of us have left and won’t return any time soon and have stopped sending money!

sabbott on August 18, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Absolutely some of the most inane commentary over the past 12 hours.

We have two major party candidates who are the presumptive nominees for each Party, and a handful of splinter candidacies running, as well. Vote your conscience.

If you cannot vote your conscience, then, don’t vote at all. This 16 years of sniping, pettiness, stupidity, has done exactly what to help get this country back on track?

I’m a Conservative. I don’t have to prove that to anyone. My record speaks for itself. I will be voting for McCain. Not my first choice in the primaries, not even my third choice. But, you play the cards you were dealt. If you can’t do that, then don’t bother sitting down at the adult table.

To those who claim to be conservative, but don’t like McCain, seems you have only a handful of options. Vote for McCain. Vote for Obama. Vote for a third party candidate. Don’t vote at all.

But actions have consequences. Inaction, that too, has consequences.

Frankly, I don’t care who the rest of the nation votes for…we get the leadership we deserve anyway.

But where were all of you “real” conservatives for the last 16 years? Bickering like small children? Involved at the local level to assist Conservative candidates get elected to Congress. Corresponding to the RNC leadership? Meeting face to face with RNC leadership or your GOP Congressional representive or Senator? Or a member of their staff? Or a member of their election committee or campaign? Out in the hustings? Before the primaries? During the primaries?

Or were you sitting at home, the total extent of your political involvement being writing snappy comebacks on a blog site?

This election is ours to lose, if you are a Conservative.

If you cannot understand that. Don’t bother. Don’t vote at all.

coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

But, you play the cards you were dealt. If you can’t do that, then don’t bother sitting down at the adult table.

coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

That resonates.

But where were all of you “real” conservatives for the last 16 years? Bickering like small children? Involved at the local level to assist Conservative candidates get elected to Congress.

Did option A, now doing option B. And I must say, option B is much more rewarding. If we can’t have the leader we fantasize about, at least we can have the dignity that comes from personal effort.

RushBaby on August 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Wow Ed, over 500 posts! Please summarize for me. Thanks.

Akzed on August 18, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Please summarize for me. Thanks.

Akzed on August 18, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Hope. Change.

RushBaby on August 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM

I don’t care who started it. Just realize this is the SOP of Obama administration – find another person(s) to put any blame on.

Which is consistent with the ‘throw anybody under the bus’ mode, when that person is deemed ‘damaging’ to Obama.

Sir Napsalot on August 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I already know too much about what the candidates stand for.

I don’t know where this 9% keeps coming from as RCP says 19.3%. RCP also says that Democrats are ahead (”generically”) of Republicans 49.3% to 37.5%.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 2:53 AM

I think you’re missing the point here. You have 2 candidates you dont like equally. But one of them will have control of Congress, making him far more potentially desctructive. And thus you help make the hole far bigger for Reagan 2 or FDR 2 or whatever savior you’ve waiting for that probably will never come.

Chuck Schick on August 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM

But one of them will have control of Congress, making him far more potentially desctructive

mccain will be ‘working’ with the democrats in congress, and the republicans will feel obligated to go along.

therefore ‘conservatism’ becomes indistinguishable from liberalism.

so mccain will probably further expand the power of the state than obama will be able to.

right4life on August 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM

mccain will be ‘working’ with the democrats in congress, and the republicans will feel obligated to go along.

LOL!

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM

again you have nothing to back up anything you say.

weren’t you going to give me a list of conservative postions that mccain took/supported???

right4life on August 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM

I know this is hard for you, but there is such a thing as party discipline. you have to go along with the leadership, or you are denied promotion, funds, committee roles, etc.

so if mccain makes a deal with the dems, and he has repeatedly done that, he can use republican party machinery to get the congressmen to agree.

try politics 101.

right4life on August 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Well, after you claimed that the republicans will go along with McCain ‘working’ with the democrats because of his evil mind control powers that he will have over them, and you haven’t proved your ridiculous claim with any fact what so ever, I don’t feel very compelled to sit an bark when you command it, right4life. Go on making a fool of yourself. It’s amusing to watch.

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Well, after you claimed that the republicans will go along with McCain ‘working’ with the democrats because of his evil mind control powers that he will have over them,

post your proof…are you so desperate you have to lie?

you can’t. you’re a liar.

right4life on August 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Awww, come on – we all know that Juan McAmnesty is evil and hates all conservatives and wants to destroy the republican party for the next 40 years, right? He must be using his evil mind control powers to that goal! Right!?/

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM

I didn’t think you’d be man enough to admit you were lying.

at least mccain has integrity that his followers lack.

right4life on August 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM

McCain didn’t invent Obama’s arrogance. He’s merely having a lot of fun pointing it out.

Doesn’t Barack carry a Hindu god with him everywhere? Friends, you should be utterly terrified making the Messianic comparison between Barack and the GOOD LORD JESUS CHRIST — even for fun. It’s not worth the laugh or reaction you might get doing it. Reporting the story is one thing, but feeding the myth is another. Please, be careful everybody.

apacalyps on August 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM

mccain will be ‘working’ with the democrats in congress, and the republicans will feel obligated to go along.

therefore ‘conservatism’ becomes indistinguishable from liberalism.

so mccain will probably further expand the power of the state than obama will be able to.

right4life on August 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Completely equal to Obama? Nah.

Chuck Schick on August 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6