But a case for Hillary taking the slot has occurred to me. This case has nothing to do with any desire to see the party win in November. I would prefer a loss, which would rid the party of Dean, Brazile and the prog-mob.
But. Patrick Fitzgerald has indicated that he will now go after certain corrupt politicians involved with the Illinois Combine. Rezko and a host of other criminal worthies must feel desperate to play Let's Make a Deal. Blagojevich is the obvious primary target. Obama is the obvious secondary target.
Of course, if Obama gets in, he will want to fire Fitzgerald. Any such move will automatically prove the case against Obama.
Fun thought for the day: What would occur if Obama were named in an indictment between November and January? Suddenly, the VP position looks interesting...
On another note: Obama is the first Democratic nominee who seems to require a conversion narrative -- we even have a respected newspaper columnist referring to him, in print, as a "LIGHTWORKER":
...that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging...Yeesh. I've hung out in my share of New Age bookstores; I should be able to read this crap without vomiting. But that gag refex is a-kicking in...
My question is: Don't the Obots know how self-defeating this kind of verbiage can be? How disgusting and bizarre it seems to normal people?
A similar question surrounds Obot online tactics. The Confluence notes that poseurs have been hopping onto that site, and other sites, pretending to be regulars who have had the demons of Clintonism driven from their hearts by the Radiance That Is He. Of course, IP addresses give the game away. Also see the important warning here about a specific "Unity" message being spread under various assumed identities.
MyDD has become an Inquisition dedicated to rooting out the anti-O heresy. Other sites have had to suspend comments altogether.
You know what's been happening to me, even though I delete the wackjob comments on sight. I thought that the 9/11 nuts were bizarre, but they were puttytats compared to the Obots.
Why do they behave in this fashion? They aren't going to convert anyone. In fact, a display of zealotry can only toughen our resistance.
18 comments:
you fucking Nazi slime
Just a brief example.
I talked to my sister this week-end. Although a Democrat, she is someone who is completely nonpolitical. She liked Hillary but will happily vote for Obama. She had heard about Rev. Wright and didn't like what she heard, but felt that Obama was moderate and soft-spoken.
The 2008 election is not going to be "red all over." McCain could win, although I doubt it. In Congressional races the Democrats will win big.
I'm converting.... I'm converting....
And I feel an overwhelming urge to write a letter to the editor using that quote you've shared.
I'm sure the good reader's of the Kansas City Star would be impressed with the soundness of my arguments. Don't you?
(What am I missing? There must be SOMETHING electable about this guy?)
Obama cannot win this election, although McCain could lose it. The age-and-rage narrative could work against him, if he does anything to feed it. But if he modifies his war stance, criticizes Bush. and manages to read his scripts without much stumbling, I expect to see a stoplight red electoral map in November. I also fear that the Dems will lose the senate.
As I recall you urged your readers to vote against all Democrats, presumably including pro-Hillary candidates. I called that "nuts." Perhaps you over-estimate the number of people who feel as you do. 81% of Democratics say they will vote for Obama. Not sure McCain will get that high a percentage among Republicans, and there are more Democrats. McCain could still win if he goes very negative. The Democrats will not lose the Senate.If Obama wins I will post a "neener, neener, neener" comment on your blog.
The article you cite is by Mark Morford. He writes a HUMOR column... it is SATIRE!
It certainly has the 'flavor' of an Obamite, but it's just a satire of their way of 'thinking'.
I doubt Obama will offer Clinton the VP, but if he does, she will accept if he agrees to introduce HER healthcare plan and maybe a few other platform pieces. That's what she is saying in her speech on Saturday. If that happens - if she's the VP and she's given the UHC portfolio - then I'll vote for him. But that's it - that's the only way he'll get my vote. Otherwise, I'm writin' in Hillary's name. Period.
As for him actually getting the nomination, that's two months off and two months is an eternity for a Chicago politician of his patronage. A lot can go wrong in that time period when you you've hung out with and done favors for the likes of a convicted Antonin Rezko, or Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks and that other loon. Not to mention, god only knows what Michelle will say or do.
This isn't a done deal yet. The travesty of the Texas caucuses could still erupt in their faces. As Frederick Douglas said, "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind." I have never seen a Democratic politician so cavalierly sow the wind.
-If Obama wins I will post a "neener, neener, neener" comment on your blog.
You're gloating. Why wait til he wins/loses the GE, huh?. The arrogance, pretentiousness and presumptuousness. It's what makes Obama and his supporters so loathsome. *One* of the things.
That Lightworker article by Mark Morford is so ridiculous, I'm going to have to blog about it myself tomorrow.
I like your point about Patrick Fitzgerald - I'm a fan of his.
This will be my first opportunity to vote as by November I'll be a US citizen - and though I'm as left-leaning as any Democrat (or even more so), I won't be able to vote for Obama unless things change dramatically before the GE. Not sure what I'll do but I'll register Independent anyway.
Wikipedia does not call Morford a humorist. They describe him as a controversial columnist and yoga instructor.
I'm looking at some of his earlier stuff now, and I don't find it funny.
Then again, who I am to say? Not long ago, I heard Meg on "Family Guy" say that Monty Python wasn't funny, and I sitll think that Python is hilarious. That particular episode of Family Guy was only so-so.
The Kossacks will, of course, turn against Patrick Fitzgerald if Fitz names Obama in an indictment. After all, they called Valerie Plame a "criminal" who deservs to be in prison. Obama is THE ONE; all reality must be bent around that single most important Fact Of History.
"Neener" is fine political discourse. I have been known to neener myself from time to time.
Maybe I should have my chakras taken in for a tune-up in order to comprehend the glory that is He.
Since we're getting metaphysical again, this shameless New Ager will admit that she finds Obama scary, especially on a pyschic level. One of the reasons I've had to distance myself from the spiritualist community I've been connected to for several years is that many of its members see Obama in a purely positive light. That (pardon me) is horseshit. It's made me question what kind of teachers I've been associating with. (And I had my chakras tuned up three months ago; still think he's a corrupt jerkoff with a pile of skeletons in his closet who campaigned under false pretenses and deserves whatever comes next as a result.)
I've also gotten into veritable brawls with fellow astrologers about his chances, which I feel are slim to none. I'm not sure what blinds people who are allegedly above bias to Obama's flaws, but it's powerful.
In a sane world, voting to give a rogue president the authority to conduct an illegal war that has cost over 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars would be a career-ending move.
Alas, we do not live in a sane world.
Hey Cannon, that's kinda wierd and spooky about the lightworker thing. Oprah is big into the new age stuff and I figured that topic would arise again somehow. Now that Obama quit his church, that even looks wierder than wierd.
But my real comment is that I believe if Hillary wants anything, it's Supreme Court appointment....
LIFETIME Supreme Court , and we do need a woman.
How much more influential could she be than that????
mk, jackasses like you are extremely frsutrating. I've been through it ENDLESS times, yet you still don't get it.
First: Edwards and Kerry and Biden and a host of other voted the same way on the same resolution, yet they do not arouse the same antipathy. I've run into people like you before. You offer pro-forma condemnation of the others, when pressed to do so by guys like me. But in reality, you are operating out of pure psychotic Clinton-hate -- and you're indulging in it at a time when it can only do the Obot cause harm. Obots would rather hate Clinton than achieve the presidency for their candidate.
Second, the war resolution was based on false information in the NIE estimate.
Third, if you read the thing -- I doubt that you have -- you would know that it allowed the use of military force if and only if the UN stipulated that its weapons inspectors did not have freedom of movement within Iraq. But the wespons inspectors went in. So there was no casus belli. The problem was not in the IWR, the problem was that Bush acted without regard to it.
Fourth, Obama himself states in his book that he reconsidered his stance on the war during the shock and awe campaign. This, despite the fact that there was, as stated above, no casus belli -- no justification.
Fifth, Obama's 2002 speech was offered in a district where opposition to the war would have been politically dangerous. During his run for the senate, he rarely brought up the subject. His Democratic opponents were more vocal in the opposition to the war, and to the Patriot act, which Obama supported.
Sixth, in his wildly-overpraised speech to the Democratic convention in 2004, Obama -- speaking to a national audience for the first time -- refused to condemn the war. He condemned the way it was being fought, but not the basis of the thing. (Check out his speech on YouTube if you don't believe me.) By contrast, Kerry and Bill Clinton criticized the decision to go to war itself itself, in their own speeches.
Seventh, during the whole 2004 period Obama made wildly contradictory and confusing statements on the war, as we have documented in previous posts, unread by you.
Eighth, when Russ Feingold proposed a pull-out, Obama OPPOSED HIS RESOLUTION. Obama also voted to fund the war repeatedly.
mk, you will be allowed a voice here IF AND ONLY IF you can address these points in detail, especially point 8.
You're obviously a low-IQ conspriacy theorist. I know your type well -- you think you are on top of the game, but you don't do any basic homework. You really think you can't be brainwashed...but lemme tell ya, those KOS guys you listen to are master brainwashers. It's frustrating to have to go through this crap an infinite number of times on these pages.
Joseph, Wiki does not call him a 'humorist', but says:
"Mark Morford is an award-winning columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. His deeply satiric social commentary column... "
I don't think he's funny either. I seldom read him, but my husband regularly does, and thinks he's funny (??!?) Miss Manners is funny.
What Does Hillary Really Want? http://savagepolitics.com/?p=652
"I would prefer a loss"?
Didn't you used to post fairly regularly about the Coming War With Iran? Weren't those posts generally *against* said war? Why would you now *hope* for McCain to win, when that would be the most likely path through which we would find ourselves *in* a war with Iran?
Post a Comment