Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The "No O" movement
The "No O" movement is for real.
Alas, this report tries to marginalize the movement as a feminist snit-fit. In fact, the reaction against Obama has many reasons.
This video never mentions the false racism accusations which turned so many against the Savior from Illinois. Neither do we hear about the insane vindictiveness displayed by Daily Kos and other blogs, which have demonized our best post-war president and presented the 1990s as The Nightmare Years. (Of course, Internet arguments don't provide good TV visuals.) This segment makes no reference to the corruption charges against Obi, and it does not mention the revolting Messianic fanaticism of Obama's supporters.
Take special note of Obama spokesperson toward the end. Idiotically, she says that being female gives Hillary "an advantage." Isn't that the exact term which got Geraldine Ferraro in trouble? The parallel is undeniable. And yet no Air America personality will denigrate this spokesperson as a "fucking whore."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"This video never mentions the false racism accusations which turned so many against the Savior from Illinois."
Apart from you and some other anti-Obama radicals (or good friends of the Clintons like Sean Wilentz who wrote the article you're referring to as "evidence" of this), I don't know a lot of people who believe these false racism accusations. And I don't think this has been great motivation for a lot of voters. Do you really think a lot people in Kentucky were saying "that darn Obama tried to play the race card, I have to vote for Hillary ?!?"
And don't you think the Hillary campaign would be pushing this more if it had substance ? They prefer to play the "We're the poor victim of sexism" card.
Your requirements to believe something against Obama are really different than what you need to believe something against Hillary. You believe anything without much evidence if it targets Obama or one of it's supporter. But you need rock solid proof to believe anything negative about Hillary (always bringing it back to Vince Foster). There's dozens of sites like "Rezko Watch" targeting Hillary and her association with crooks that has the same level of "substance". But you decide to believe only the one targeting Obama.
"And yet no Air America personality will denigrate this spokesperson as a "fucking whore.""
It would be difficult, Randi left AAR for Nova M Radio and she's still in love with herself. She's been impossible to listen to in the last weeks (and in my case, not because she's going postal against Hillary), but she's in a very annoying manic narcissistic stage where she has to tell how great she is every hours.
Btw, do you know one liberal radio show host who doesn't support Obama over Hillary ? (and Kevin James is not a liberal :)
Steve Corbett.
But then again, you know that I draw a distinction between liberals (such as myself) and progs (whom I despise). Liberals want a return to the 1945-1980 economic paradigm; progs are Libertarians in disguise.
There is a HUGE anti-O movement out there. And if you don't think my reasons for it are valid, then I can only presume that you belong in the Anyone-Who-Won't-Vote-4-Barry-Must-Be-KKK camp.
The Wilenz piece is absolutely damning, but it is hardly the only one of its kind.
Look, people are wising up. What Obama is trying to do is what Eddie Murphy did in "The Distinguished Gentleman." Remember the scene where he pretended to be the head of the NAACP? Doing a perfect imitation of Dr. King, he guilt-tripped the head of an important congressional committee.
Everyone -- white, black, Asian, Hispanic, everyone -- can now recognise that trick. We can spot it a mile away. We aren't buying it anymore. Doesn't mean we're racist. We're just not going to be manipulated.
As for rock-solid proof of all the wild charges against Hillary -- I have rock-solid proof that there IS no rock solid proof.
Ken Starr.
End of story.
Well, hyperman, I'm one person who DOES believe that the Obama campaign smeared the Clintons as racists. They even got caught with their own memo and it got mentioned in one of the early debates.
Quite frankly, this is one of the most damning charges against Obama, and one of the most reprehensible smears you could make against another Democrat. I will never vote for anyone who does something like this to get votes, and I don't care if they're the Messiah themselves (which Obama doesn't even come close to being). I've followed this campaign very closely and paid very close attention to each incident as it happened.
Here is just one ludicrous incident: Jesse Jackson Jr. actually telling the press that Hillary's tears had to be examined. Why was she crying about her appearance rather than about Katrina victims? I have never before heard such a ludicrous statement made by a so-called public official about another. What a stupid, stupid comment!
How in bloody hell would he know why Clinton had tears in her eyes? How in bloody hell would he know whether she cried about Katrina or not? Who the hell is he to tell someone else how they should feel about something, or even IF they felt a certain way about something? Was he with her every minute of the day when that whole thing unfolded? But, no, the media just ran with this laughable comment and smeared it all over every network ad nauseum. I watched this stuff happen over and over and over and over again. The Clintons couldn't say anything without it being made into a racist statement. Obama couldn't be criticized about anything without it being racist. Quite frankly, I won't vote for someone who thinks they are above criticism and will simply smear anyone who levels it. No public official is above criticism. I really can't see living through 4-8 years of hearing every dissenter called a racist just because they don't agree with His Perfectness.
It's really unbelievable to me that Obamabots have to believe that their candidate is some kind of perfect creature who is above criticism, who doesn't have to tell anyone what his plans are, who doesn't have to explain his sleazy associates, but can claim anything - no matter how sleazy and unbelievable - about his opponent. No thanks! If push comes to shove, even a McCain presidency would be more restful than that.
It is a FACT the Obama campaign smeared the Clintons as racists. The race card was the only thing the Obama campaign EVER had. Get your head out of your rear. They have run the filthiest, most vile primary campaign since the GOP did in 2000 with McCain. Obama will be lucky if he gets D.C. in the fall, should he get the nomination.
"The Wilenz piece is absolutely damning, but it is hardly the only one of its kind."
Do you have others ? I have a lot of difficulty believing the accusations against Obama coming from a longtime friend of the Clintons. How can Sean Wilentz be objective ? Would you accept as evidence the content of an anti-Hillary article written by Rev Wright ? I know I wouldn't. I would like some objective analysis of these accusations, not a well written smear job by a Princeton professor who is a good friend of the Clintons.
- "Why do you think you would be a good jury Prof. Wilentz ?".
- "Because I'm a long time friend of the victim your honor and I know with certainty that the accused is guilty !"
"Well, hyperman, I'm one person who DOES believe that the Obama campaign smeared the Clintons as racists. They even got caught with their own memo and it got mentioned in one of the early debates."
Like I said, I know the anti-Obama radicals (the antiobamabot) seem to believe this for now. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm writing a comment on the blog of one of them :) But apart from some blogs, I don't believe you're a big movement (maybe in the Appalachian, a very strategic place for Democrats). Oh yeah, and the memo, big big piece of evidence. I wonder why it's not used more by the Hillary campaign if it was such a damming evidence of systematic foul play. (And I wonder how it was published on Huffington Post ?)
"It's really unbelievable to me that Obamabots have to believe that their candidate is some kind of perfect creature who is above criticism"
I thought that this was the Hillary supporters attitude ! that their Hillary is perfect and beyond criticism. I'm sorry, but by being an "antiobamabot" you're not better than the "obamabot", you're still just a mindless "bot" yourself. I know Obama is not the messiah as I know Hillary is not the messiah (but I know both are better than McCain), but I don't need to cling on tiny speculative evidence to justify a radical hate for one of them and the belief that the other one is a saint (there's people guilty of this in both camps, and both sides will claim the other camp has more and that they are worse). The only thing about the candidates I know for sure is that they are sadly both from the same race of individual called politicians. And with your current system of election finance where they need to raise hundreds of millions to get elected, it corrupts them all. You're not choosing between a saint and el Diablo, you're choosing between the lesser of 2 (d)evils or a Republican demon (or moron).
And are the false accusations of Ken Starr in the past a guarantee that Hillary is pure, perfect and flawless for infinity... and beyond ? Since when being falsely accused in the past become a guarantee that you're a saint ? I don't give Sean Wilentz more credibility than Ken Starr. When your goal is to prove an accusation and not to found the truth, your success rate is sadly higher. That's the main flaw of most "9/11 truther", they are not looking for the truth, but to prove THEIR theory.
"even a McCain presidency would be more restful than that."
I'm sure Hillary, your beloved messiah, and MOST of her followers would not even agree with you on this. I would be surprised a high percentage of Hillary supporters are voting for her because they hate Obama like you do. But it's human to project your feeling to others. It's like the gay community who like to think everyone is gay.
in 2000 and 2004, I remember that some anti-Gore and anti-Kerry radicals in the Democrat party also thought that George W Bush would be a better president than Gore or Kerry !?! Can you imagine how stupid they feel today ? They also had great article showing how Kerry was the devil because he was a member of Skull & Bones, so why not elect Bush anyway, it's the same thing ! As Joseph said before, fighting the anti-Kerry radicals were one of the main motivation for starting this blog... que c'est ironique mes amis.
I'm Canadian (to be more precise, Québécois) and Hillary or Obama, I don't care. But you can say I'm a radical anti-McCain. The only person you're going to punish by directly or indirectly electing McCain is yourself (and the rest of the world who can't vote in the US but has to live with the consequences).
I don't remember Starr engaging in false accusations as to HRC. He got the job of finding out whether various accusations had adequate evidence on which to bring indictments, when Janet Reno was forced to cashier the first 'special prosecutor' in favor of the renewed Independent Counsel position, and then the 3-judge panel headed by David Sentelle selected Starr as IC. Reno later acquiesced to Starr taking the various metasticizing scandal charges because Starr hid his conflicts of interest.
But logically, absence of sufficient evidence to have a likely conviction, or at least a plausible probable cause basis for bringing an indictment, doesn't necessarily clear anyone of the underlying charge.
Rather, as Joe said, it shows that there is no solid case extant in the evidence. But people can commit crimes for which there is insufficient evidence to indict, let alone have a reasonable chance of conviction.
Word at the time, from chief Starr deputies' leaks to the press, was that they were about to indict HRC (probably on perjury charges). This was improper, and possibly a violation of grand jury secrecy laws. However, it remains unclear to this day, IMO, whether they had some probable cause sufficient to indict (and just not enough to make conviction likely, therefore braking any such action), or whether even the claim that the threshhold had nearly been met was false.
That is similar to where BHO stands in the Rezko matter at this point.
...sofla
Sof, they had nothing on Hillary. Not a thing. Everyone in the media and the judicial system went gunning for her. And they found NOTHING.
Look, with Rezko and Obama, what do you have? I mean, look at the stuff that is on the record and non-controversial, or at least non-controvertible.
You have Obi lying his ASS off during a debate about knowing Rezko. You have an FBI mole proving that the two were involved every day.
You hve Obi recruited by Tony right out of law school to work for his dodgy law firm, which is steeped in Chicago corruption.
You have Obi doing everything he could to make sure Tony could get that corrupt tenement contract, which led to Tony making millions while poor blacks suffered.
You had Tony using dodgy money from overseas to make sure that Obi got a house you could not afford. As part of the deal, Tony's wife (who officially earns about $34,000 a year, as I recall) bought the adjacent property for $615,000.
That's just off the top of my head!
Post a Comment