This has got to be the question that first drove Hilary Clinton crazy during the Democratic primaries, and now has the John McCain camp all up in arms. I mean, really, it appears that Barack Obama’s past is so squeaky clean all his opponents can do is pull up the negative files of his former friends and associates. I’m surprised they haven’t pulled Barack’s credit report, and exposed his beacon score.
From Jeremmiah Wright to William Ayers, Obama’s opponents have ripped out every contact in his Rolodex. What’s amazing about this witch hunt for Barack’s corruption is the fact that they haven’t found anything bad that he’s actually done. Does “guilt by association” really mean anything?
Especially when a lot of the associating in Obama’s case is when he was nowhere around or in some cases when he was a child. If they’re going this route, does this mean Jesus was a bad man? I mean they did talk badly about Jesus for eating and drinking with sinners.
In a nutshell, the “guilt by association” gimmick the McCain camp is pulling is really silly and is probably going to backfire on him. I mean, what if the Obama camp begin to rekindle questions about McCain’s involvement in the Keating
Five scandal? A tale of corruption that actually has John McCain smack dab in the middle of it.
But there’s no doubt McCain will only downplay his corrupted past, and continue his onslaught of garbage politics on Barack Obama, so America should get ready for it. But when you’re watching the next “guilt by association” ad on Barack Obama, ask yourself one common sense question. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president that you can’t find any dirt on?
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.