Some of the middle-aged, older women who call themselves "feminist", who complain about not being seen as an equal to men, have literally jumped the shark with their support for Hillary Clinton. These women claim to want to be seen as an equal to men out of one side of their mouth, but out the other side, they want to be given an advantage for being a woman.Have you ever seen a single statement on any pro-Hillary blog justifying this nonsensical accusation? If so: Citation, please.
If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.My god, do the O-Bots have any idea how many people they repulse with this Messianic crap? No-one should spew this kind of romanticized glop about any candidate -- ever.
Can you imagine what he COULD have done? Bosnia ads? NAFTA lie ads? Colombia ads? He had fucking KID gloves on with Hillary, and STILL some of her supporters think it is HIS fault and that HE was the run who ran a dirty campaign.Oh yeah? Let's talk about skewed reality.
Their skewed reality is unbelievable.
Hillary did not lie about NAFTA. In previous posts, we looked into the matter very carefully. There was never any evidence worthy of the name against Hillary, while the evidence against Austan Goolsbee was titanium-hard. Worse, Goolsbee -- when caught -- was quoted as saying that he had nothing to do with Obama's campaign. A complete lie!
Obama has run the filthiest campaign in the modern history of the Democratic Party. His supporters falsely accused the Clintons of appealing to racists. Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe, de-bagged that particular cat, admitting that any white person who would vote for racial reasons has already migrated to the Republican party. (See here.)
"Skewed reality"? You want to talk about skewed reality?
When Rev. Wright held his press confab to explain himself, the DUpes writing the next morning were convinced that the country would fall in love with the guy. They thought that Wright-mania would help propel Obama to an unprecedented victory in November. Said one: "I wonder if we can carry Idaho!" (This meme was short-lived; a few hours later, Obama condemned his former pastor.)
That is "skewed reality," my friends.
"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to Kos writer Jeff Feldman, who argues that violent language is a purely right-wing phenomenon, despite the garbage spewed daily on Daily Kos? Oh, and let's not mention Michelle Obama's voiced wish to do physical violence to Bill Clinton. Feldman won't mention the despicable wife of the Democratic front-runner. He thinks Ted Nugent is more important.
"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to Donna Brazile, who responded to a perfectly polite plea for seating MI and FL with these words: "I am not going to respond to any more anti American, Anti Democratic emails"?
"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to the O-Bot who thinks the election is winnable if the Democrats purge all Hillary supporters -- and who quotes Chairman fucking Mao to buttress his position?
"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to all of those who ascribe Messianic tendencies to a corrupt creature straight out of the Daley machine? To a politician who has never received a serious challenge from any Republican? To a man who has never done anything to help black people?
Obama received money and favors from a crook named Rezko. Obama at first claimed not to have known Rezko at at all; later, an FBI mole revealed that the two men were in contact every day. And how did Rezko make his filthy money? He profited from the misery of poor blacks.
Is that's the kind of Messiah you seek?
Talk about skewed!
11 comments:
Sorry Mr Cannon, but by comparing Obama and his supporters with the Nazi, you lost your license to talk about correct reality perception.
I hope you're not under the illusion that you are able to make an objective comparison between Hillary and Obama (or Obama and McCain). Your bias is quite obvious and you are not what we can consider to be an honest broker of reality on this topic.
So what you are doing on your blog is not really useful, you are just pandering to the anti-Obama crowd and getting a lot of hate in return from the people you insist on attacking.
The solution is quite simple, if you cannot tolerate the hate, stop spreading it. But I guess you become addicted to the attention, bad or good.
You accuse anyone of bias who does not favor YOUR bias. Well, I suppose that is a very human trait.
"The solution is quite simple, if you cannot tolerate the hate, stop spreading it."
I treat as I am treated, and so should others. If Obama did not want to be despised, he should not have trafficked in hatred.
"But I guess you become addicted to the attention, bad or good."
What can I possibly do to lay this accusation to rest?
I have asked larger blogs NOT to link to Cannonfire. Hell, I practically had to FIGHT with Raw story to get them not to list me.
I do nothing to promote the site. I have turned down MANY invitations to speak on the radio or in front of crowds. I never accept money for my writing and I have turned down all invitations to write for other sites.
I practically shoo off my readers with sharpened rakes, and I keep telling you people that I would be happier if my stats were about one-third of what they now are.
And yet people like you still accuse me of seeking attention!
That comment alone demonstrates your inability to see the difference between what you want to be true and what IS true.
"If Obama did not want to be despised, he should not have trafficked in hatred."
"But they drew the first blood"... Because you were attacked by some Obama zealots, you are now authorized to go Rambo on Obama and use the cheapest attack against him ? And you don't expect to get some shot back at you ? Even if they started the fight, you keep it alive by throwing punch and don't complain when you receive some in return.
You seem to have difficulty making the difference between your war with Obama zealots (who can be nasty assholes) and Obama himself. And what if these nasty Obama assholes were attacked by some Hillary asshole first ? Are they authorized to go Rambo on you since they were attacked by another Hillary supporter first ? Where does that logic lead ? If you are attacked on the street by someone who has a "Vote Obama" button, can you attack the next person who has a "Vote Obama" button without expecting that person to fight back ? I don't know how you can take a personnal attack from someone and attribute it to a large homogenous group called the "Obama supporters" (or Obots to insult them) that you seem to consider controlled by Obama himself.
You have to understand that for an Obama supporter who never visited your site before, you are the nasty asshole. Could they quote your site to show how evil the Hillary campaign has become now, comparing them to Nazi ? And could they use your site as a justification for going ballistic against Hillary ?
This is a never ending war where no winner can emerge.
James, he authorized the "Clintons are racists" accusation. We know this from internal memos. Yet his own campaign manager has, in effect, admitted that the whole thing is a lie.
I need not prove that everything traces back to the Man himself. That is enough.
These words are a bit ironic for me to write just now -- since I actually have a movie about Jesus on the other screen just now -- but can any man place himself at the center of a Messianic movement accidentally?
You're naive if you think so.
The problem with your post is that the exact same things would be said by others about Hillary if she had won the nomination. Any person striving to be objective would go to DU Underground and see nasty stuff being spewed by both sides, not just one. To claim otherwise really undermines your credibility.
Clinton's surrogate made the statement about Obama being "your hip black friend." Bill Clinton likened him to Jesse Jackson--a comment that only has to do with race, the same way any sports commentator can only seem to compare black quarterbacks to other black quarterbacks (you ever hear one say a black quarterback reminds him of Dan Marino, John Elway, or Steve Young? No.) Hillary Clinton said Obama was not a Muslim, "so far as I know." And then she made that comment about white Americans, which you have to admit would have been suicide for any Republican--or you would think any Democrat--to say.
Are Obama's hands clean? Certainly not. He's a politician. His message of hope and change is very much a shtick, just as Hillary's being a "fighter" was her's. And you have every right to not support him if you choose. But to sit here and act like he was the only one playing tough is frankly being either deluded or disingenuous.
"James, he authorized the "Clintons are racists" accusation. We know this from internal memos. Yet his own campaign manager has, in effect, admitted that the whole thing is a lie."
About the "race card", I read the article by Sean Wilentz in the The New Republic you are linking to as the "ultimate proof" that Obama authorized the "clintons are racists" strategy. My first reaction was : that's it ? There's not a lot of evidences to support the strong accusation in the article, it's mostly speculative. I'm sure Hillary's staff is watching every word from Obama to spot some comments that can be spinned as sexism, it's normal politics in the US, not what I would call "the filthiest campaign in the modern history of the Democratic Party". No wonder you are among the few who are trying to spread this "meme" that Hillary is the poor victim in this campaign.
I did some research on Sean Wilentz to discover that he's a good friend of the Clintons who always wrote favorable editorials, not someone I would consider an honest intellectual reference on this topic. Would you trust accusations against Clinton written by a long time friend of Obama ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Wilentz
"Wilentz is a long-time family friend of the Clintons.[2]. Wilentz appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. His testimony — he told the House members that, if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton's offenses were impeachable, "history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness" — cheered Democratic partisans but was criticized by the New York Times, which lamented his "gratuitously patronizing presentation" in an editorial.[3]
Wilentz has been a prominent supporter of the presidential candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton.[4] He has also written numerous articles analyzing Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, charging Obama with creating "manipulative illusion[s]" and "distortions," and having "purposefully polluted the [primary electoral] contest" with "the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988." [5]"
Do you think that Hillary would be winning without the speculative "Clinton is a racist" attack by Obama ? What's the percentage of people voting for Obama who are doing it not to vote for Hillary or because they were convinced by the Obama campaign that Hillary is an "evil racist" ? In return, what's the percentage of Hillary's voters who support her because they hate Obama. It would be interesting to know. But my intuition tells me that the least vocal supporters (the silent majority who doesn't leave comment on blogs) are voting out of preference, not because they hate the other side and will never vote for the other candidate.
"Are Obama's hands clean? Certainly not. He's a politician. His message of hope and change is very much a shtick, just as Hillary's being a "fighter" was her's. And you have every right to not support him if you choose. But to sit here and act like he was the only one playing tough is frankly being either deluded or disingenuous."
Amen !
Anon:
The problem with your list of horribles the Clinton campaign did is that they didn't happen, or didn't mean what those who are inclined to view her in the worst light have taken them to mean.
Take the Jesse Jackson comment. Jackson himself has said he didn't view Bill Clinton's remark as racially motivated or in any way an exceptional statement. Jackson isn't known for having a thick skin, or being a rabid Clinton supporter. Clinton was indeed referring to the large A-A vote there, which made it fertile ground in the past for Jackson to win there twice, and a very friendly place for BHO conducive for him to pick up a win. That's a political fact of life, and a commonplace to mention in political analysis.
Likewise, Hillary's 'so far as I know,' concerning Obama not being a Muslim. She answered no, of course not, and similar formulations, four or five times. It was only when the interviewer wouldn't take 'of course not' as definitive, and the other 4 or 5 denials, as her 'final answer' and continued to ask the question, after she'd already expressed empathy since she knew what it was like to be smeared, that this came out. It was not a dog whistle to encourage the thought, which existed only in the overheated imaginations or in the bad faith lying of BHO partisans.
...sofla
"She answered no, of course not, and similar formulations, four or five times."
Sorry, but it's not exactly how it happened Sofla, you can watch it yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7eAnx6Vxrs
it's @ +/-2:30, you have the answer by Clinton.
Her first answer to the question "Do you believe Obama is a muslim" was : "I'll take him on the basis of what he says". That's hardly a "Off course not ! that's crazy ! Who is repeating these ridiculous accusations ?". Her answer was instead a polite way of saying "maybe... I don't know... that's what he says", without a lot of conviction. You would found it normal if she answered the question : "Is John McCain a secret muslim ?" with "I'll take him on the basis of what he says" ?!? Of course not, it would sound really weird. No wonder the interviewer felt compelled to ask the question again to make sure he understood her weird formulation. She then goes for the mandatory "of course not" but ends it with "AS FAR AS I KNOW" !?! Like she might be wrong, like if it was still a possibility ? We want nuance out of our leaders, but maybe not that much on such a simple question.
Maybe she could keep that nuance for when she'll have to take the decision to wipe Iran out of the map ?
(after that, the guy who put the clip on youtube did some editing, but that's not the point, it was the first one I found).
Since I am not a great fan of grandiose accusation (like accusing her of flirting with NLP on this one), I would just say she missed a great occasion to stay above cheap politics. My main problem is that I don't believe the doubt she's expressing is genuine. I'm sure she knows with 100% certainty that Obama is not a muslim. Don't you think her campaign research staff would be the first to know if he really was a secret muslim ?
So I can understand why it was also frustrating for some Obama supporters to see her miss that great opportunity to really clear things up. It would have been really really simple to give a non-ambivalent definitive answer to that question instead of nuance and doubt that made the interviewer repeat the question many times to finally get a real answer ending with ... as far as I know.
So, as far as I know, she might be a secret muslim too, but I'll take her on the basis of what she says. Of course she's not one... but who knows ? I was wrong in the past, I might be wrong on this one too. How can you really be sure of something ?
James, look, I understand that you are new here, but next time, use the search function at the top of the page. We have DEALT with this matter before. At length. I gave the transcript.
I've caught myself saying, not long ago, "As I recall, Disneyland is still in Anaheim." (I was being kind of snarky.)
So what?
This is nonsense -- you are seizing upon a bit of out-of-context wording and you are trying to find something that simply is not there. It would be as if I were to make a federal case out of Obama's "57 state" slip. Except in this case, I don't think Hillary can even be said to have made a slip. In context, she made clear that she found the accusation ridiculous.
Look at it this way. Imagine that you had cameras on you ALL THE TIME, catching your every off-the-cuff statement. Imagine that you had teams of oppo researchers poring over every word, trying to find some way to read "racism" into some bit of wording. They twist your words, they hold them up to the light, they look at the message backwards, they take out their secret decoder rings....
...and eventually, they'll find something. It's inevitable.
You're human, and you cannot possibly foresee every possible way that your words can be misapprehended. You cannot mentally edit and re-edit your every comment before speaking.
And so you become damned as "James T -- RACIST!" And the progressive mafia writes blog post after blog post, decrying your bigotry.
Hell, if I were sufficiently motivated, I could make you out to be the reincarnation of George Wallace, based on your comments here.
But don't you see the potential for backlash? Don't you see how transparent and revolting this kind of ploy is?
If the progblogs had not gone in for this sort of unfair attack, sites like No Quarter and The Confluence would not even exist, support for Hillary would have collapsed, Obama would have won PA and the nomination, and the GOP wold not gleefully be thinking of ways to use Obama against down-ticket Dems.
This sort of attack is self-defeatin
james t:
Joe said it, and I take him at his word.
That is the equivalent of HRC's opening sentence. It does not imply lingering doubt, nor does someone stating that logically lead another to properly infer they mean to raise a doubt. Quite the opposite.
What it really means is that the responder may not have independent confirmation or knowledge that the statement is true, but that they are taking the word of the person who would know best as definitive.
That is, he says he is (isn't) [something], and I believe him.
It's charming that you think those who hold a different belief on what was said and what it meant must not have heard the clip. We have heard it. What was NOT generally heard was the BEGINNING of HRC's remarks, because those determined to make up a meaning that wasn't there typically EDITED OUT her prior demurrals, and then pushed hard to redefine what the one remark must have meant.
...sofla
Post a Comment