Palin Punches Back After Obama Attack Ad

Palin Punches Back After Obama Attack Ad

Sarah Palin punched back yesterday at President Obama after Obama attacked her in his latest ad. Palin writes from her Facebook page:

The far Left continues to believe American voters are not smart enough to grasp the diversionary tactics it employs to distract us from the issues our President just doesn’t want to talk about – issues that affect us all every day and must be addressed.

Exhibit A in these diversionary tactics is an absurd new attack ad President Obama has released taking my comments out of context. I’m not running for any office, but I’m more than happy to accept the dubious honor of being Barack Obama’s “enemy of the week” if that includes the opportunity to debate him on the issues Americans are actually concerned about. (Remember when I said you don’t need a title to make a difference?)

The President does seem to have a problem with women. His poll numbers are dropping and there’s even been a book written about it: Women in Obama White House felt excluded and ignored:

It says that women occupied many of the West Wing’s senior positions, but felt outgunned and outmaneuvered by male colleagues such as former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Summers.Dunn told Suskind that the problems began during the 2008 campaign. At one point she was viewing a television ad with other campaign officials and was shocked to see no women in the spot.


“The president has a real woman problem,” an unnamed high-ranking female official told Suskind. ” The idea of the boys’ club being just Larry and Rahm isn’t really fair. He [Obama] was just as responsible himself.”

Palin has always been a target of Team Obama; he once remarked during the height of the 2008 election “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Says Palin of the President’s new attack:

This latest ad is quite odd, but also quite telling. It shows that our President sure seems fearful of discussing the economy, energy prices, and all the other problems people need addressed. And intended or not, now that his ad opens up the discussion of Barack Obama’s radical past associations and the radical philosophy that shaped his ideas about his promised “fundamental transformation” of our country, I welcome the media to join ordinary Americans in finally vetting Barack Obama. The media failed to do so in 2008 to the detriment of us all. Maybe this time around they can do their job.

The ad in question:

The clip is from Sean Hannity’s program:

“Barack Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor …”

They’d like you to believe she’s saying that because of Obama’s race. But was it fair of her to say? Valor is possessed by valiant, or brave men and women. Is it valiant to be a United States President known for what’s commonly been called ‘apology tours?’

Better, yet, is it valiant to call a 30 year-old progressive activist as narrative deflection the way in which Obama did regarding the recent Limbaugh flap, because the 30 year-old woman heard a dirty word? It must not have been that offensive because Obama has no problems if his wife goes on the “David Letterman Show” when it’s well known that very same host has used that very same word against Sarah Palin. 

And what did Sarah Palin get for her having to put up with Letterman’s name calling? A phone call? The words of the President telling her how proud her parents should be of her? No, though she’s not running for any office and is now a private citizen, she’s under attack yet again in a political ad because Obama wants to make some money off of her and hide his record. What is so valiant about a man who does that?

What of the dozens of times Obama has blamed and attacked others for what most now perceive as his failures in office? Nothing of great valor in that, if you ask me. And if one really wants to talk about Barack Obama’s valor, how about taking a million dollars from a guy who made part of it calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt,” “tw*t,” or worse? Did she at least get a call for that one, after the million dollars cleared the bank? Not hardly.

In fact, all Team Obama did was take Maher’s money, part of it made by spewing filth at Palin and use it to attack her, again. 

Palin was then quoted in the ad as saying this:

And his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism … He is bringing us back, Sean, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War … What Barack Obama seems to want to do is to go back to those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin, why are we allowing our country to move backwards?”

I’m having a hard time seeing what Obama and the Democrat’s problem is here. We all now know his associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres and Derrick Bell. That should take care of the “radical” piece.

Has Obama been trying to divide the country along socio-economic lines? Let’s ask the Sun Sentinental.

Much of what President Obama said in his State of the Union address concerning wealth and the economy made sense. It also made it very easy for Republicans to continue saying that Obama is promoting class warfare.

Because that’s kind of what it sounded like Tuesday night.

Oops! Sorry, he loses, again. And what about those outlandish comments of Palin’s, that Obama is ‘trying to divide America across racial lines for political gain, a tactic right out of the Civil War era?’ Well, as I’m a conservative and I’m sure Obama thinks we’re all racist (he did mandate Derrick Bell as required reading in his classes), I think I’ll leave that to two Democrats in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. That should do it. Take it away Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen:

Our Divisive President Barack Obama promised a new era of post-partisanship. In office, he’s played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda. Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.

Now, tell me, what was it, precisely, that Sarah Palin said that was wrong? All Sarah Palin did was go on television and speak the truth, which with Obama, will only invite attack. These aren’t the actions of a valiant man. 

Sarah Palin has every right to say Barack Obama is a man without valor. Too bad Obama hasn’t demonstrated enough of it in how he’s treated her. Ball’s in your court, Mr. Prresident. But then, Sarah Palin is a woman, perhaps that will make it easier for him to “punch back twice as hard” this time. Or, maybe he just can’t take a punch back?

Again, one can read her entire Facebook posting here.