Obama Camp Uses The "L" Word To Describe Palin Claim

Posted by: David Kiley on September 8, 2008

Up to now, the McCain and Obama campaigns have been just feisty complained about one another’s ads, using words like “distortion,” “Misleading,” etc.

But when it comes to the McCain/Palin campaigns continued boosting of the story that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin “said No” to the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” (This was a bridge from mainland Alaska to an island that would have cost Federal taxpayers hundreds of millions, the Obama campaign has called it an outright “LIE.”

“Lie” is a word that political campaigns are loathe to use about one another’s claims. But the Obama campaign is trying to get the attention of media, who seem to have been cowed the last week or so by the McCain campaign over charges of unfair treatment of Palin.

Here is the ad:

From Obama spokesperson Bill Burton: Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time and he and Sarah Palin will continue Bush’s economic policies, his health care policy, his education policy, his energy policy, and his foreign policy. McCain and Palin will say or do anything to make people believe that they will change something besides the person sitting in the Oval Office. That’s the kind of politics people are tired of, and it’s anything but change.”

There is plenty of consistent reporting and evidence that Palin endorsed the bridge project while running for governor in 2006, and then claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year. Palin has used the $223 million provided for the bridge for other state ventures.

Bill Burton’s intent is spelled in his e-mail to reporters:

Burton says: “The question remains whether the same news orgs that debunked the original Bridge to Nowhere falsehood will aggressively stay on McCain and hold him accountable every time he and his campaign repeat it.”

The McCain hasn’t yet gotten back to BND. We’ll post their response if they do.

Meantime, Obama’s campaign on Monday added the “L” word to a new ad driving the point home.

Reader Comments

ann

September 9, 2008 9:49 PM

"Lie" is a pretty harsh word and usually it backfires on the user. You have to be pretty sure of what you're talkinga bout to toss that into an ad.

However, Palin says she said no to the bridge while even O'Reilly agrees that she said yes *before* she said no.

In any case, she kept the money earmarked for the bridge and used it on other projects---if media reports are accurate. Using the word lie in this case is attention getting and could potentially cause people to give McCain Palin's reformist claims a second look.

frank loweser

September 10, 2008 5:46 PM

It's about time. This guy I have read about, Steve Schmidt, who runs McCain's campaign, came out of the same pod as Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.
Shame on McCain, whom I voted for in 2000 in the GOP Primary, for selling his soul to such people. He used to be an honorable man.
I don't care what he did 40 years ago to earn honor. You earn real honor every day. And he is acting dishonorably in this campaign.

Howard

September 13, 2008 2:23 PM

In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion
about Obama's energy plan, in response to Bill asking
Barack, what if the development of alternate energy
sources don't deliver. Obama compared his approach
to John Kennedy's space program, and how if you go
for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between
our space program and our energy challenge is ... If it had taken
us longer than we thought to get to the moon ... or, if we hadn't
gotten to the moon ... no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes
into alternative energy, and it doesn't happen in time ... or, if
it doesn't work, our entire economy, as well as our national
security could end up in ruins. Our country's entire energy
infrastructure revolves around petroleum. 167,000 gas stations,
the 250 million vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take
to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative
fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to
transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely
new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and
goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to
secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale,
while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama and
Pelosi also want to dip into the strategic oil reserve, as a way
of pandering to voters, but what if we have a true emergency,
like Hurricane Ike, or Hugo Chavez cuts us off, or Amadinajad
cripples the straits of Hormuz? Obama seems to be
playing fast and loose with our country's future ... gambling
with our future, all based on hope and faith ... with consequences
which could be dire. Obama's plans, or lack thereof, are
extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who
does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as
President of the United States.

Post a comment

 

About

News, opinions, inflammatory meanderings and occasional ravings about the world of advertising, marketing and media. By marketing editor Burt Helm, Innovation Editor Helen Walters, and senior correspondent Michael Arndt.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!