Sen. Barak Obama has emphasized change; change the status quo; that’s his campaign slogan. What more status quo than Murdoch family and their influence peddling empire? Can you believe that Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth Murdoch is planning fundraiser in London for Sen. Barak Obama, away from scrutiny of American media; not that our media is going to say anything even slightly critical of Sen. Barak Obama’s past or present activities; our perceived Mr. Clean and Mr. Change. What hypocrisy is this? I am asking all those naïve Obama supporters to open their eyes and see what’s going on? Or have they all been brainwashed by Oprah?

So, Murdoch support is a good reason to eliminate a candidate?

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

<link>

Oh, and:

<link>

But, but...we are taking about our Mr. Change, Sen Obama, you see...not about Hillary or John, they don't claim to clean up Washngton and chage the status quo, sort of thing! But you see, it's Sen. Obama is the one who is campaign on CHANGE who's but they are not offering to save such influnces. He's the one who is saying that he's going to stop the lobbyists and imflunce peddlers, that's is an inmportat part of his platform. Now, don't point fingers at others, they don't claim what Sen. Obama is claming!

DeaH...It your candidate is the one who's promising to end, it's pointless point your finger at others.

presterjohn:

DeaH rebuffed your attempts at smearing Obama with evidence that HRC had also benefitted from Murdoch's help. You alleged, he countered with links that disproved your stance...nuff said.

You then counter with: "but we're talking about Obama!" HRC has also campaigned on a 'change' platform; she is just neither articulate enough nor believeable enough to make anyone support what she says.

thanks for trolling

You didn't read all the articles, did you? tsk-tsk.

You Clinton supporters are really getting desperate aren't you? Your arguments have been reduced to idiotic ramblings.

one of the slickest LYING campaigns to come down the pike in years. In addition to your example here about Murdoch's daughter, what about the FACT that BO has accepted more than $ 200,000 from "various individuals" in the oil & gas industry YET because the $$ didn't technically come from any Oil & Gas PACs, he LIES and says he doesn't take lobbyist money. Horsepucky! Look it up on Google -- he has accepted plenty of lobbyist money in this campaign AND while "serving" in the Illinois State Senate as well. The worst thing about the Fraysters' (especially BOTF, imho) naivete and gullibility about BO is that it is accompanied by their usual arrogance. NOT a great combination, imho. Regards to you, rp. :-)

once again. So it would seem are many otherwise discrete fraysters over in BOTF who have joined the forces of RACISM screamers in a knee jerk campaign to drown out all other opinions except for their own.

Um, where, in any of my posts, did I scream racism?

There seems to be an odd phenomenon going on here. Hillary's press machine puts out the idea that anyone who follows Obama is a non-thinking, Kool-aid drinking cult member. The idea from the Clinton crowd is that anyone who would vote for Obama must think that he's some sort of a perfect demi-god. By extrapolation, that thinking goes, if anyone could just prove that Obama has a human failing, his supporters will turn to Clinton. So, the Clinton supporters spend a lot of effort trying to prove that Obama has some sort of fault, and they're furious that proof of his humanity doesn't strip away his support.

Well, here's the thing. Most people who support Obama do not believe his is a god - not even the little "g" kind. We just believe that he is better than Hillary and McCain. To win our support, someone would need to prove that their candidate is better than ours.

To be fair to McCain, he really hasn't had much of an opportunity to do that yet. And, early on, the Hillary group did try to prove that their candidate was, in rubric set forth by the Hillary camp, more experienced. For a very long time, the press accepted this without any examination of the evidence. But, as it turns out, she has less elected experience, her "foreign policy" experience is largely ceremonial, and the one big efforts, public health, was a failure. And, since she was not an elected official when SCHIP passed, that fact that she keeps saying that she passed it is about as real as the sniper fire she faced in Bosnia.

<link>

<link>

And, now you present yet another leg in the Clinton attack machine, and, in my opinion, the most interesting. Even though I never mentioned race (or gender), you claim that I am playing the race card. This is the new tactic of the Clinton camp - let's make race the issue. When the tape of her Bosnia trip came out, Senator Clinton brought up race (via the Wright issue) in defense of her bald-faced lying. And now you introduce it for the first time in an argument that mentions it not at all.

So, here's my question for you. Are you working for the Clinton campaign, or did you drink the Kool-aid from the cult of St. Hillary?

<link>