Why a double standard for Barack Obama?

I prefer the usual conspiracies about Presidents. I don't understand why Obama is accused of using mind-control on people to get them to vote for him and he is accused of conspiracy for not being able to 100% dismiss the claims about his birth certificate. I don't think Obama's using mind-control techniques I think he's a good speaker. I think he gets his message across very well. I also want to know why it is that there are people that don't want him to become President no matter what but wouldn't mind if John McCain became President... and why many people accuse him of being a Muslim when even if he was a Muslim in the past he obviously isn't anymore. I'm just wondering where the usual conspiracies about Presidents have gone. Why the double standard for Obama? Why are there more personal and character attacks than conspiracies against him?

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]

Perhaps McCain is still hoping to be president.

I read an interesting story by a journalist paid to join McCain's stable of fake letter-writers.

I ghost-wrote letters to the editor for the McCain campaign

The offer was too alluring to delay -- they wanted to put me into action as a ghostwriter. Next to commercials and phone banking, writing letters to the editor is the most important method of the McCain campaign to attract voters. At least that is what's written in the guidelines that McCain campaign worker Phil Tuchman presents to me.

Today he is training six ghostwriters. What on earth is the appeal of McCain for the former Soviet bloc? Last time I was here, an exuberant Polish guy was phone banking next to me. Today, a Russian in yellow suspenders is shimmering at the same table, looking just like an actor who is famous in the Netherlands for star turns as a genius who suppresses his dark side with painstaking self-control.

The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want -- as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. "Your letters," says Phil Tuchman, "will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we'll place them in local newspapers."

Place them? I may be wrong, but I thought that in the USA only a newspaper's editors decided that. "We will show your letters to our supporters in those states," explains Phil. "If they say: 'Yeah, he/she is right!' then we ask them to sign your letter. And then we send that letter to the local newspaper. That's how we send dozens of letters at once."

No newspaper can refuse a stream of articulate expressions of support, is the thought behind it. "This way, we will always get into some letters column."

Examples of the letters are here:

It could be that instead of terminating the letter-writing campaign when he lost the election, McCain refocused and redoubled his efforts, caring more about winning at any cost than about the American electoral system.

Or perhaps Bush and Cheney are trying to destabilise society in the hope that people are going to riot and give them an excust to declare martial law instead of stepping down.

Perhaps some people just hate Blacks so much they're trying to stir up enough hatred to get a good old-fashioned lynchin' going.

Whatever the cause, it's not a big issue and will soon blow over. Everything written against Obama in these threads comes down to lies, insinuations and, sometimes, simple misunderstandings.

The average voter has more important things to worry about than a bunch of persistant mud-slingers.

Many great orators know of the uses of manipulating body language, and are taught, or read up on concepts such as Neuro Linguistic Programming. Fair play. Calling it mind control is born of ignorance and fear.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I think there are just a whole lot of people who voted for McCain and are so upset that he didn't win, they'll do absolutely anything to try to destroy Obama's character.

The basic and simple fact is this, Bush messed up America, as many millions of people predicted he would.
Obama represents a massive change.
And all those people who have made money from the Bush era are terrified that the economic divide he created (you know, the one that gives them power, money and advantages over the less-wealthy) will come to an end and they'll lose out.

You don't need mind control or anything else in this situation, you just need to appeal to a massive majority who have felt robbed and abused for the last eight years, and the people who wouldn't normally get off their ass to vote.
He did a remarkable job at empowering people and inspiring them to be a part of this massive change.
From what I saw, he was exactly right on McCain representing little change. And obviously, Obama represents a massive change, which is what so many people desperately wanted.

And you also have to look at the fact that if something were to happen to McCain, that Palin woman would become president. I don't think even the most dim-witted would be able to accept that.

When you look at the way each side handled that campaign, Obama seemed to be more professional, and didn't need to resort to insults and petty accusations. The people who are disaffected with the system are fed up of all these tactics, they are obvious, pathetic and transparent. It reeks of desperation.
Again, Obama represented change here too, not treating the public like idiots who can't tell the difference between a relevant issue and a smear campaign.

All of this means that no dirty tactics or strange methods were needed. He didn't need to brainwash people, people were already on his side in their desperation to see a change in policies and social structure.

That's how I see it anyway.

Expect a McCain groupie to come along any moment now stating links with terrorism and questions over religion (remember separation of church and state?) because that's all they have left to say.

Perhaps some think he is using a form of mind control because of the behavior of some of his most fervent followers. He is a great speaker, can't deny that. He had excellent coaches during his candidacy to make sure people thought only good thoughts when he spoke. But the way some of his followers look at him with almost religious devotion is quite frankly a bit frightening. There are some people who believe that every word from his mouth is complete truth and that he can do no wrong. Some think he is absolutely perfect. The woman who thinks that she'll never have to worry about gas or her mortgage again since he was elected comes to mind.

Those of us who see him as just another politician who can and will lie if it suits his purposes look at the people I just described and wonder what explanation there could be aside from them being brainwashed. Most people had no clue who this guy was until he ran for president, and then out of nowhere he reaches superstar status seemingly overnight. He hasn't done anything yet and still some people talk about him and look at him like he is going to swear in and then fix everything over night.

He is a politician. Politician's lie to get into office and very rarely do they actually keep any campaign promises. Yet some people seem to think that he is going to step into office and completely change everything that's gone wrong with our country. Hate to break it to them, but he isn't going to change much, if anything. If people wanted real change they shouldn't have voted anyone who has been in Congress during the last 8 years back in. Voting for the guy who had the best speaking skills, and used them make you feel that voting for him was your best option, is not going to change anything aside from who is sitting in the Oval Office. But that would have changed this time around regardless of whether Obama or McCain or one of the third party candidates won.

I don't see it as a double standard. Had McCain used all the voice tricks that Obama did and then won the presidency, I'd be saying the same thing. Just cause he talks pretty doesn't mean that he isn't lying through his teeth and doesn't mean he is as perfect as some supporters seem to think he is.

Just my two cents.

reply to post by Jenna


I don't think he's a liar. I think you've really oversimplifed the problem. What Obama was running as is a change from the Bush administration. He is that. I'm just wondering why there is a double standard about Obama among both Democrats and Republicans. I think he's fairly honest and since he is inexperienced he isn't just a politician.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Yes, but Bush appeared to be fairly honest in the beginning as well. I didn't say he was a liar, merely pointed out that he could be lying. I don't feel I've over simplified it, I honestly think it is that simple.

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by double standard? I went back and read your OP and I'm still not sure where you see the double standard. Maybe my confusion is caused by me just missing something. (I do that occasionally. ) I'll try to answer each of the points in the OP, maybe that will help. Or at least help figure out what I'm missing.

If McCain had gone to Klan meetings, which is about as close of an example as I can get to Rev. Wright's sermons, people would have thrown a much larger fit than was thrown over Obama's attendance at that particular church. If McCain had been raised, or allegedly raised, for any length of time in a Muslim atmosphere questions would be asked about whether that was his religion or not. I'd really rather not get into yet another BC discussion, but had McCain won and not previously confirmed he was eligible to be president, there would be just as many lawsuits wanting him to prove his natural born status and I would be here questioning him as well. I have already addressed the mind-control angle as best I can.

I didn't vote for Obama, but it doesn't particularly bother me that he won. My only concern is that those lawsuits he does have against him should be answered and ruled upon for the simple fact that if any of the allegations regarding his natural born status are true, he is not eligible to be president and I would prefer the Constitution be upheld and adhered to instead of tossed in the trash whenever it's convenient for the government to do so.

It's the issues surrounding him that most are concerned with, not Obama himself. And most of the posters I have seen that respond to threads about him do not appear to me to be completely against him being president, they just want the questions answered. He spoke of transparency in his administration but has done nothing so far to show any transparency, which frankly doesn't leave me much hope that he will live up to any of the hype. So far he has just surrounded himself with the same people who have been in Washington for years, which is not change by any definition, and refused to answer simple questions completely, which is anything but transparency.

There are some who are just plain anti-Obama, but they are the minority not the majority. Yet everyone who questions anything about him are lumped together as though we all must be part of the KKK if we dare question anything about him. That is the only double standard I see.

reply to post by Jenna


Sure. Please don't hijack my thread into another birth certificate discussion. I believe they are legit. Hey, you know the reason why I think all of you who think in this way are racist sometimes (those of you who are serious)? You know how many constitutional laws George W Bush broke? People were unhappy about him but didn't want to go to the supreme court to sue him and reject him out of office. But you're doing it to Obama and he's black, yet, I'm sure if McCain was President you wouldn't be questioning him as much and you would live with the fact that he has some issues with his birth certificate too when Obama does as well but he is criticized far more than John McCain is.

This minority group that wants Obama out of office is a minority group of sore losers that feel like they can somehow overturn the will of the 69 million voters who voted for Barack Obama. They at first were name-calling him: calling him a socialist, a terrorist, a Muslim, and then they went on to question his nationality because they didn't believe he was American because they thought he had anti-American ideals. These laws shouldn't go to the supreme court because they were brought about by internet rumors and also these were anti-Obama myths started by the same people who said that he is a Muslim and that he is a terrorist so these myths should not be taken seriously. He has produced his birth certificate. But let me get to my point.

Obama is being judged WAY TOO HARSHLY among the conservatives critics. These conservative critics are trying to ruin him before he even comes to office. He hasn't enacted any legislation really, he has brokered a deal with the Iraq PM which lead to the agreement of the SOFA earlier, before he was elected but people are trying to ruin him and he isn't even in office yet. The lengths that these sore losers will go to protect their constitution because they believe internet rumors or books written by crazy nut jobs to get rid of Obama is just astonishing to me.

I think people should really try to just accept the fact that we have a Black President. Who knew it would be met with so much opposition?

The double standard I am talking about is that during the campaign it was known that John McCain had several shady associations but people treated that like business like usual. During the campaign people wanted to talk about Obama's associations with the Weatherunderground group, which was a group against the Vietnam war, and they were labeled as a terrorist group by the Republican party when they didn't kill anyone. Not to mention Republicans were always complaining about a liberal bias yet they blew up a story about ACORN while at the same time hiding their own voter fraud story. Have you been paying attention to the news at all lately? There is CLEARLY a double standard among Republicans or anti-Obama people about Obama.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Yes Bush has done and authorized many things that should never have happened. There has been a movement to impeach him for years and many a person has voiced concern and demanded actions be taken against him. Don't know about you, but I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to devote to a lawsuit against Bush. Had there been one, or 17, against him like there are against Obama over a Constitutional matter I would be right here discussing it and hoping it got settled one way or the other. (Hmm, sounds like what I've been doing concerning the whole Obama thing.) There are many people on this site who would.

You're generalizing again. I'm not doing anything because Obama is black, and I certainly don't appreciate being lumped in with the very few who are. As I have stated numerous times, I don't care what color his skin is. He could be multi-colored with rainbow spots for all I care. If McCain had been elected and had lawsuits surrounding his natural born status, yes I would be questioning why he didn't just release the information to the courts and settle it already instead of dragging it out for months. An innocent person doesn't try to hide things.

McCain isn't criticized as much anymore over his BC because he was up front about potentially not being eligible, released everything needed, and there was a resolution passed by Congress declaring him eligible. He took care of it before it became much of an issue, Obama didn't. And really, why would anyone be very concerned with McCain's natural born status now when he lost the election? That would be a waste of time and effort really since it doesn't matter anymore. If he had won the election, then yes I would be here wanting the matter settled one way or another. Just like I am with Obama.

Do you by chance have proof that the people who filed these lawsuits against Obama are the same ones who first said he was Muslim and a terrorist?

Just out of curiosity, were the people who wanted to overturn the will of 62 million people who voted for Bush in the 2004 elections just "sore losers"? How about when they wanted to overturn the will of 50.5 million people in 2000? Sure there were issues with hanging chads and voter fraud, but it was still an attempt to overturn the will of millions of people.

I see nothing wrong with wanting the Constitution upheld and adhered to by our government. We have a Constitution for a reason, and despite Bush's opinion it is not just a "damn piece of paper". There are very few lengths that I would disagree with when it comes to protecting the rights laid forth in it. There are very few things I would disagree with when it comes to making sure that it is followed. Filing and discussing lawsuits does not qualify as going to far in my opinion.

And again, it has nothing to do with Obama's skin color for the grand majority of us. I really truly wish that his supporters could understand that. Most of the people who keep bringing race into it are his supporters, not those who are questioning. That tells me that it is mostly his supporters who are concerned with race.

Weather Underground was a terrorist group. That they managed to not kill anyone was pure luck. They threw Molotov cocktails at buildings, they destroyed personal property, they blew up a statue twice, they did car bombings, they planned or completed bombings on police stations, army bases, military functions, the Pentagon, prisons, and the list goes on and on and on. Two members died putting together a bomb that was to be planted at a non commissioned officers ball. They were not a peaceful group. Peaceful groups don't riot, plan bombings, commit bombings, etc. Peaceful groups don't plant bombs in buildings.
List of Weatherman actions

Terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Going by 1 and 3, what they did was terrorism therefore they were terrorists. It doesn't take killing someone to be a terrorist. As for Obama's association with shady characters, yes he does seem to have quite a few friends and associates that are shady. Does that make him shady? Not necessarily. Does his associating with such people deserve questioning? Absolutely. Just as McCain's shady associations should have been questioned.

What voter fraud are you talking about? Ran a search and the only thing I found was about ACORN. Whether that proves your point or not, I don't know. Even searching for Republican voter fraud only turns up articles and blog posts about ACORN. What did the Republicans do this time since I apparently missed it?

reply to post by Jenna
jerome Corsi is the one that started the whole myth about his background without reporting actual facts. His book has inspired many people because they want to believe it.

What they did was anti war protesting. They didn't even kill anyone and I should also mention that John McCain was linked to the Iran Contra affair yet the media didn't focus on that story. Plus Obama did release a copy of his birth certificate. It may not be the real one but it has the same information and it shows that he was born in Hawaii. So why the doubt?

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Again it doesn't take killing someone to be a terrorist. And technically two of their own were killed while putting together a bomb meant for a non-commissioned officers ball on a military base, so their actions did cause the deaths of two people. They had every intention of killing people, they just failed to kill the "right" ones. Did you even look at the list of what they did or tried to do? Just because they were American's doesn't mean they weren't terrorists. They used violence and threats of violence in an attempt to intimidate/coerce for political purposes. They used terroristic methods of resisting the government. They were not a peaceful anti-war group, they were terrorists plain and simple.

I haven't read anything about Corsi's book so I will refrain from commenting on it. And in the interest of not turning your thread into a BC thread, I won't respond to the final three sentences.