zanne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 11:59 AM
Original message |
Fight back against smear email about Obama's religion NOW! |
|
Just go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter/ They'll give you the FACTS about Barack Obama's religion and heritage so you can answer those smear emailers with some excellent replies!
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Here's a great response another DUer compiled: |
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It would help if people at DU stopped giving Obama a hard time |
|
every time he acknowledges his Christian faith in public. I couldn't believe how many posts I saw attacking Obama for saying he was a proud Christian on the weekend set aside to celebrate the Reverend Martin Luther King's lifetime of progressive achievements.
|
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I did just yesterday, to a store clerk. |
|
I don't usually butt into other's conversations at the checkout line, but a customer was talking to the clerk as her order was being scanned and the clerk, and older gentleman, said "No way I'd vote for a Muslim," in regard to Obama. The woman told him "He's not a Muslim," but he'd have none of it. "Of course he is!" he insisted. I had to step in..."I'm sorry, I know this isn't my conversation, but Barack Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, always has been." The woman said "See!" and the clerk just harumphed. Something tells me he didn't really care about Obama's religion, though.
.
|
zanne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Nah--It's just a handy smear. nt |
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:07 PM
Response to Original message |
4. You might want to have a word with the Clinton campaign who was caught early on |
|
passing those cheesy emails around.
|
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. "the Clinton campaign". No text. No need. This was already discussed to death here. |
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. My only point was very simple |
|
"the Clinton Campaign" is an incredibly opportunistic catch all phrase. To me any candidate's campaign is their official representation. Clinton's campaign, like every campaign, has official campaign spokespersons who represent the official position of the campaign. Clinton's campaign, like every campaign, maintains an official campaign website where official statements from the campaign are posted.
You could easily have said instead "individuals connected to the Clinton Campaign" and I would not have made any reply. And yes this was kicked around a great deal at the time both at DU and in the national press. It is a fact that "The Clinton Campaign" disavowed itself both from the message of that email and from the individuals at a county level who helped to distribute it. They were removed from any further involvement with "the Clinton Campaign."
I fully understand, having been alive and reading during the debate about it here at DU, that many do not take "the Clinton Campaign" at its word that they did not encourage and condone that behavior. That is open to legitimate differences of opinions. I think I know yours about it. But the simple truth is that it is misleading to simply state that "the Clinton Campaign" did it because that phrase does have a literal objective meaning. One thing that can not be claimed is that "the Clinton Campaign" circulated those emails as "the Clinton Campaign" in the name of "the Clinton Campaign". The Clinton Campaign actually condemned them, even if you believe that they are lying about it.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. It isn't misleading, in fact, it's truthful and the best way to describe |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 12:46 PM by AtomicKitten
the entity I was referring to without the addition of the superfluous information you suggested. It wasn't necessary except to perhaps assuage the language police around here.
On edit: And oh please check my links wherein the Clinton campaign admits to the capers.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-23-08 12:12 PM
Response to Original message |
6. But yet when Obama fights back against it, DU recoils from his "bible-thumping," despite |
|
it being no different from Hillary's or Edwards' statements on religion.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 03:12 PM
Response to Original message |