Reply #15: Apparently you can't articulate it either. [View All]

Personally, I object to using emotional triggers like horror (Cambodia) and guilt (Abu Ghraib) to set the reader up for a final insubstantial attack on Obama.

It's an old propaganda technique: argue that the people are flawed, offer up horrific examples of past political flaws, close with the unspoken implication that the current enthusiasm of the people is setting the stage for another disaster of epic scale. Notice how when McCamy posts along these lines, only the Obama campaign is considered in a negative light.

No mention of how Clinton has gone from being a popular likely winner among Democrats 6 months ago to being widely disliked today. In McCamy Taylor world, that is entirely the fault of the Obama campaign, of course; nothing that Senator Clinton says or does is up for criticism or reappraisal, because that would involve admitting that people have formed negative opinions, and undermine the narrative of 'evil media giants run it'.

No, the candidate of 'ready on day one', 'ready to answer the phone at 3am', 'dodging sniper fire', and numerous other slogans must always be taken at face value, whereas the other candidate's slogans are wicked and deceptive. You see, the people are unable to think for themselves; they are nothing more than the emotional slaves of Barack Obama. In McCamy Taylor world, Hillary has never made an emotional or pre-rational argument in her life.