Remember how united the Democratic party felt in 2004? That ain't happening now. Face it: Nothing like the PUMA movement occurred then.I keep waiting for the Obot smear-mongers to publish a few words of genuine contrition for the venom they spat at all opponents of the Savior From Illinois. Instead, they keep spitting.
Case in point: This piece from Sadly No!, which is very sad indeed. The main target is Larry Johnson -- photoshopped with a wig on his noggin, a ploy designed to question the masculinity of every male who supported Hillary Clinton.
Obama supporters actually think they can convert by insulting. What the hell is wrong with those people? (Frankly, I've given up on converting them. The Borg are beyond reach.)
The piece quotes me as well. As a preface to the excerpt, the following text manages to mix three metaphors into one sentence:
Also, if anyone’s in the mood to stare into the heart of the sun, there’s a movement building in the Clinton-or-else cargo cult that leaves behind even Lambert of Corrente, one of the most grudging of hatchet-buryers:Let's take these metaphors one at a time. The sun provides light, so I'll accept that remark as a compliment. Obots have a nerve calling anyone else a "cargo cultist;" their fanaticism has made them notorious. And who brought out the hatchets in the first place...?
"Clinton-or-else," my arse. The very post quoted by Sadly No! also contains these words:
For the umpteenth time: I wish that Hillary Clinton had never run. For months, my motto was "Anyone but Hillary."
Why do Obots display this recurrent inability to read the English language? Because they have a script in their heads which tells them to ascribe all heresy against the Lightbringer to a perverted devotion aroused by the Clintonian Beast. Hillary hath magic powers to bewitch, or so sayeth the Inquisitors of O.I'll say it again. I'll say it a hundred more times if need be. This isn't about Hillary Clinton. This is about Barack Obama.
He's a crook and a chronic liar, and his team is headed by creeps like Brzezinski, Axelrod, Daley, Goolsbee and Liebman. I despise nearly every single one of Obi's associates -- especially Brzezinski, the Pol Pot funder who caused a lot of lifelong Dems (including your truly) to take a Kennedy-or-else attitude in 1980.
PUMA was created in response to the "progressive" blogs, which waged a horrendous Freeper-style smear campaign. ("Progressive" belongs in quotes; libertarians actually run most of those sites.) With incredibly violent and abusive language, they spread lies and insane conspiracy tales in order to denigrate Hillary Clinton and her husband, the finest president since FDR.
Many Kossacks, Huffington Posties and DUpes wanted to destroy the Clinton legacy more than they wanted to elect Obama. That's why these prog-blogs mounted a Stalin-style purge designed to alienate millions of lifelong Democrats. "They can go!" shouted the proggers. "Obama will make up the deficit with his cross-party appeal!" In other words, the Obots intended to exclude Dem lifers and appeal to conservatives.
That strategy doesn't seem very smart now that the PUMA movement has gained momentum. Today, the prog-blog abusers still won't apologize. Their onionskin-thin egos won't allow them to say: "Maybe we fucked up; maybe we went too far." But they will say: "Okay, so the debate got a little heated. There were problems on both sides."
No, there weren't. The Obots opened fire; we returned it.
"Who struck first?" is a perfectly fair question -- indeed, that question arguably provides the basis for any system of moral thought. To repeat a metaphor I've used before:
French army in Moscow in 1812 = Unjustified.
Russian army in Paris in 1814 = Justified.
Or:
Husband abuses wife for years = Unjustified.
Wife poisons husband's breakfast = Justified.
The Obots remind me of a running gag on The Simpsons. Whenever Homer bears full responsibility for some outrage that nearly wrecks the town, he always says: "Well, let's not play the blame game."
Sorry, Homer. Let's.
26 comments:
I looked up "Sadly no!" myself. Take a gander at their supposedly brilliant takedown of Richard Cohen. I looked at the Cohen article and it so happens I think this is one of his better efforts. He points out, quite correctly, that McCain's life story shows he has a couple of core principles. Such as being tortured for 5 years by the N. Vietnamese and refusing ignominious repatriation. Whereas Obama's life history shows no such core principles.
Now, what's to disagree with there?
"Sadly No!"'s MO is ridicule and invective, always has been. You shouldn't be surprised at their juvenile churlishness.
Thanks to a reader for pointing out a bad link; I've fixed it.
The point to supporting Obama is that you get to abuse other people because you're more enlightened that they are and the evidence of your enlightenment is demonstrated by the fact that you support Obama. Very simple.
If they don't get to abuse other people, then Obama can't hold them.
If you become an Obot, then you too get to abuse other people. You're missing the entire appeal otherwise.
I'd say the fact that the election was stolen (Hillary had more votes AND pledged delegates) was a big reason for PUMA to be born.
But I absolutely agree with your reasons - and reading this entry was very satisfactory. Thank you for it. Especially the part about "both sides did it" that used to be the GOP response when caught with their pants down (Enron, Abramoff etc)
Bravo and well said. I think the worst was the new media turning into the old media in a matter of days .
Thats not a wig! thats donnie osmonds actual hair from the 70's. Get your facts right you sexist pig! Just cause a dude has long hair doesn't mean he's wearing a wig! Chauvanist!
Bingo bigtime. You nailed it. I also agree with edgeoforever with regard to the reasons the PUMA movement was born. I'd argue that the reaction of O-bots all the way down the line is evidence that their opinion of the matter deserves to be utterly discounted, but not that PUMA was born in reaction to them. It made it easier, yes, but in addition to a rigged and stolen election, there's a twisted tangle of family feuds simmering that allowed this to happen. It goes back to Nader, and yes, to Kennedy.
But the number one reason the movement was born was that the election was a sham, and the Democratic leadership on whatever level was obviously involved.
Great post. I felt excited as I read it. I dig your style.
I'd say the fact that the election was stolen (Hillary had more votes AND pledged delegates) was a big reason for PUMA to be born.
I'm quite sure that PUMA was born to support the objectives of its Republican founder, Darragh Murphy, who donated $0 to the Democrats and $500 to the McCain campaign in 2000.
Nicely played Mr. Rove.
You're the one who is being Rovian, LittleBrother. PUMA was born on the Confluence, a site set up to handle exiled members of the Kos community.
Instead of trafficking in lies, why don't you do your candidate a favor and APOLOGIZE? Admit that the progblogs upfucked big time.
And don't you DARE hand me "Well, both sides..." crap.
You want unity? SHOW SOME FUCKING HUMILITY FOR ONCE. Lose the face or lose the election.
Joseph, perhaps I should have been more clear and said the PUMA PAC.
It is a fact that Ms. Murphy founded the PUMA PAC. It is also a fact that she donated a large sum of money to the McCain campaign in 2000 and didn't donate anything to any Democrats that election year. She is clearly working for the man she has been supporting for the past 8+ years.
These facts can be easily verified by searching the FEC public records.
Maybe there should be two groups to distinguish the Democratic PUMAs from the Republican PUMAs.
Joseph, as always this post is excellent.
In line with all of your points, it seems quite possible that the Obama campaign and its minions are applying Alinsky's philosophy to the max.
I am no expert on Alinsky so cannot say with certainty. All I know, is what little I know, so offer the following hesitantly.
Saul Alinsky's 1971 list of 13 Rules for Radicals:
1 ) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2 ) Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4 ) Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5 ) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6 ) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7 ) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8 ) Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9 ) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10 ) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11 ) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into it's counterside.
12 ) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13 ) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Certainly some if not all have been used by Obama's campaign.
Sadly No, as so many other puppet sites, seems to be a believer in rule # 5, and definately, as you pointed out, an adherant of rule #6.
great post Brother Cannon!
I was reading through their thread and I saw not one intelligent comment. All I saw was childish taunts and snarky comments!
Birds of a feather......
I agree with Joe that the Obama-crazies might show some retribution after they skewered Hillary with vicious lies and demonizations.
But noooooooo. And, as a result, or until, I will not vote for Obama. It does seem that he is kissing up to Hillary for some strange reason (perhaps, she is the one with the cajones?); but he wants her supporters.
His avid and voracious supporters are now trying to defend his ridiculous further cowardice, i.e. FISA, NAFTA, funding.
Ha!!! Those people should have chosen someone who knew what they were doing.
All I saw was childish taunts and snarky comments!
Well, it is intended to be a humor/satire/snarky site, so what do you expect?
Birds of a feather......
And since you support HRC, that's not a snarky comment, right?
All of you Hillary-bots can hold your breath till you turn purple, and threaten to take your ball and go home, or whatever other puerile behavior you think will make your point (not that there is one, other than sour grapes), and it will not make an iota of difference. Obama is going to be elected in a landslide, and you will be left on the outside, bitching and moaning -- you know, kinda like you are now.
And, no, I am not an Obama supporter or contributor. My Dem choices, in rough order, would have been Gravel, Dodd, and Edwards. If HRC had become the nominee, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat -- in fact, I have already voted for her twice to be my Senator.
However, I am an American, and it is as plain as day that Obama will do more for me and my country than McCain could ever do (as would have Hillary).
You folks need to grow up and join the real world, or be remembered in history as the Ralph Nader of 2008 -- only without having affected the outcome.
The game is over. Get on with the rest of your lives.
wavy, you observed all of the posted rules for comment. I'm going to institute another.
Anyone who presumes that the only reason why I oppose Obama must be that I just love love love that Hillary -- won't get his or her comment printed here.
Even after I said for the zillionth time that this is not the case -- and even after I illustrated the point with an image of yours truly slamming his head against the CRT -- Obama supporters keep repeating their script. They refuse to understand.
We oppose Obama not out of love for someone else. We oppose Obama because HE IS A CROOK AND HE CAN'T STOP LYING.
He has lied so much and so obviously that his supporters don't even defend him against the lying charge anymore. As for the "crook" charge -- have you read Evelyn Pringle's reportage, which is based on a whole lot of other investigative reporting done in Chicago? The thievery may not be indictable, but it happened.
And vis-a-vis your final line: Scroll down for Cannon's law.
I know this is your site and you can do what you want: But if you want to present yourself as honest, you should post all comments, even the ones that don't support your narrative that "All Obama Supporters are Really Mean Like Kos Who Really Hurt Your Feelings".
Just sayin.
Again, I find your vehement victimishness and comparing yourself to a battered woman completely repugnant. Your candidate lost. That is not equivalent to being traumatically beaten by an abusive spouse.
You should be ashamed of yourself for carrying on like this.
I feel sad that the alot of what is fueling this rift is hurt feelings between bloggers and party activists. "Hey that guy over at [insert blog here] was a total asshole through the primary and won't apologize, thus I am projecting my outrage and anger onto the candidate.
A couple of my friends have posited that this is a unique baby-boomer personality trait: If I am not happy, the whole country/world/universe must grind to a complete halt until I receive redress!
I am not boomer bashing, but it does seem a tad self-indulgent, all of this overheated "You are not the boss of me!" posturing.
If you support the party platform, you can't possibly think that these people are very different in their approach to seeing the goals of the party come to fruition. Each candidate has said over and over how much they agreed on most matters. It was just that one candidate had a longer history kicking GOP ass and a great track record. The other guy is a newbie. We probably should have gone with the person with the track record, but we didn't. If you believe in the Democratic Pary platform, then how is voting for McCain going to make the goals of the platform happen?
I realize you have listed your goals. They are all about vengance and showing Obama voters who is really the boss and showing certain bloggers that you are important and unhappy with their treatment of you and others. But again, what does that have to do with the platform and overall goals of the Democratic Party?
Weez, check out Glenn's comment two posts above. He talks about being censored on all of his old haunts.
"But again, what does that have to do with the platform and overall goals of the Democratic Party?"
The overall goals of the Democratic party are ill-served by nominating a crook and a chronic liar.
It's amazing that people like you don't even TRY to defend Obama against the charge of lying. (Let me guess -- you're now thinking of some variation of "Other politicians lie too...")
I do not believe he is a liar. Thus I cannot begin to mount a defense - I find the charge to be spurious.
I do not think that Senator Clinton is a liar either. I do, however, KNOW that John McCain is a liar.
That is terrible for Glenn, but what does that have to do with anything I have said?
When did we stop being responsible for our own behavior?
My parents never accepted the excuse of "Well he/she started it!" when they caught me behaving badly. I was taught that my most important responsibility is for my own behavior.
Now I agree that there is a limit: The tactic of "Shut up while I abuse you." is not acceptable. Obviously one is not obligated to take crap from anyone just to be "the better person".
However, becoming generally abusive and wildly enraged at everyone who doesn't completely agree with you (and willing to abandon all of the things that Senator Clinton has spent her life working for) because of your feelings of offense is difficult for me to understand. Taking on the characteristics that offended you in the first place is not exactly making things better.
I am starting to sound ninnyish so I will stop. Everyone is going to do what they want to do and the party will probably never recover. Maybe that is a good thing and the demise of the party will open new doors. I am pretty tired of our habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe the greenies and the various populist third parties might actually make a go of it.
"I keep waiting for the Obot smear-mongers to publish a few words of genuine contrition for the venom they spat..."
The intention behind this mess is
to destroy the institution of the president as an institution that reflects or upholds the revolutionary tradition of the United States: The revolution against the principles of the British East India Company, against “free trade,” “globalization” and the WTO.
That done, the glorious club of "this is the way it has always been" can proceed with their rerun of what came to be called "World War II" (nuclear version) reducing the planet's population to some one or two billion, and get rid of the arrogant nation-states who are so presumptuous as to hold up the common good or the General Welfare, and the Pursuit of Happiness as an ideal and to regulate the activities of those who were destined by the Gods and their priests to run the whole utopia.
And we are focused on the mercenaries and dupes apologizing? Good grief. What has that to do with the price of gas or grain?
"The tactic of "Shut up while I abuse you." is not acceptable."
This is precisely why Obama must lose. If he wins, then the Kossacks will gain ever more credibility and they will continue to act that way. THE only way to rid the party of those people is for either Hillary or McCain to prevail.
"I do not believe he is a liar. Thus I cannot begin to mount a defense - I find the charge to be spurious."
I've documented the lying many times. The evidence is incontrovertible. Look up my previous post on NAFTA. Look up the long list of lies compiled on the Savage Politics blogsite.
You are beyond rational debate if you believe Obama to be an honest man. Never attempt to post a comment here again -- at least, not until the censorship ends of Kos, HP and DU.
I guess the bottom line is this: I like Obama. But I have a lot of love for the Clintons. Though I voted for Obama, I found myself doing more defending Clinton against spurious attacks. Why couldn't we just say "hmm, I really have love for Senator Clinton, but I am going to go with the new guy because he excites me" MINUS the Hillary bashing.
But my theory is that we don't like making nuanced choices. If we choose A, it is because B is Teh Evil! We can't seem to deal with the idea that A and B are great, but we just might favor A for some small reason.
So we bashed the hell out of a great American to justify our choice and created a wound from which we will never heal. Sigh. Good job, liberals. We suck.
So, Weezie, all those congresscritters, the ones with law degrees... Just can't handle nuanced choices? The guy running the DNC, Dr. Dean... can't handle the nuanced choices? George Soros, multibillionaire market speculator and funder of things chaotic... can't handle nuanced choices?
Post a Comment