Jayjay’s correct. I was talking to the OP, not you. I don’t get the sense that you’re hoping for Obama to be hurt.
Oh, I know, but based on my saying that I’ve always had my suspicions about Obama, I was afraid that Diogenes would think that I am anxious to have those suspicions confirmed.
Prejudiced much?
I think that a fair assesment of all of my comments in this thread are directed at Obama’s underlings.
You do realize though that you can’t decry guilt by association so much if it applies to someone he just picked to be a high level adviser.
So you know that all Rahm did was give Blago a list of names huh. That wold take about two minutes. I’d be willing to bet that the contacts are more extensive than that.
And you base that on no evidence whatever, of couse.
Then it would be a good bet for you wouldn’t it?
Your protest would be more persuasive if you had not spent the runup to the election, on this Board at least, trying to guilt Obama by association with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, and similar bullshit.
Just what exactly did Obama promise to provide in a “few days” anyway …
Just contacts between he and his people and Blago and his people.
How about internal discussions between Obama and his advisors about Blago and his shenanigans?
That’s pretty much the definition of prejudiced isn’t it?
Not really because “contact” in itself is unremarkable, and there are hundreds of people who could argued as being ties to Obama. You guys will try to argue that anyone who’s ever talked to both men in their entire lives is a “go-between.”
How about proving any such discussions ever existed? What is your evidence that Obama or his advisors had any knowledge at all of Blagojevich’s “shenanigans?” How could they discuss something they didn’t know was happening?
And how would a U.S. Senator not have some sort of “contacts” with his state’s governor?!
Sorry to taint my question with my own prejudices… I’m just wondering whether we should expect to get info on internal discussions regarding what Rahm new and when he knew it and who he told it to… Or Axelrod … or the lady that wanted the job but couldn’t afford it.
You mean What the…?!?
What Exit? is an Obama supporter.
:eek::smack::mad:
You’re right. My apologies, What Exit?.
You’re seriously just grasping at straws here.
All too seriously, I fear.
If so, it would have been much more helpful to say as much: “We are looking into the matter and feel that premature comment might be unhelpful.” What he did say was far from this, and almost guaranteed to fuel speculation (as indeed it did).
If he was under such instructions, would not Obama be justified in reading him the riot act over what he did say: “Why do you lead these reporters on, when a simple statement that you’ve been asked not to comment would serve perfectly?”
What he did say was nothing. How is saying nothing “leading reporters on?”
Believe me, I’m not seriously grasping at the possibility that the Messiah of Change and his team will be held to the same standards as others.
Which of your strawmen are you suggesting I’m grasping at?
Do you think this is going to magically win everybody over if you repeat it often enough? At least make a specific accusation if you’ve got one.