Obama's speech: I thought he spoke well. But how can we believe him? He lied about NAFTA. He lied about campaign finance. He lied about FISA. He lied about opposing the war during his Senate campaign. He lied about knowing Tony Rezko. He lied about Wright. He has lied incessantly.
He challenged McCain to run a dignified campaign based on the issues, eschewing character attacks or "gotcha" moments. That segment of his speech made me so angry I nearly tossed a book at the television screen (which is as fine a symbolic gesture as the human imagination has ever conceived). Obama divided the Democratic party by infecting it with the politics of the smear. He fights dirty -- always has -- and deserves to get as he has given.
Tabloids: Many Obots still regard the Clintons as the King and Queen of All Monsters. I ran into one commenter earlier this morning who insisted (sans proof) that Hillary engineered the revelation of Edwards' infidelity. The folks who think that way (and there are quite a few of 'em) presume that the all-powerful Clintons dictate every word printed in the tabloids.
Oh really?
During a late-night shopping expedition, I spotted this blaring tabloid headline: "IT'S WAR!" (Which tabloid? The Globe, I seem to recall. Not that it matters: All of those rags are owned by the same company.) The "war" in question is the one between Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, who, we are told, despise each other. Maybe so; I don't know Hillary's feelings, but Michelle certainly cannot hide her animosity. The article favors Michelle, whose alleged beauty, youth and grace have allegedly thrown Hillary into a snit-fit of envy. Or so we are told by fictional "insiders." Virtually every line of this piece radiates psychopathic CDS.
If the Clintons control the tabloids, why don't they get better press?
Redemption: Yahoo News puffed a piece proclaiming that President Clinton "redeemed" himself by speaking at the Democratic National Convention. The headline conveys the impression that Bill Clinton behaved like a pig throughout the primaries -- that he has spent the past nine months wearing Klan robes and swigging moonshine while snarling "Yew all ain't gonna vote for no coon, y'hear?"
Those anti-Clinton smears are the reason why the PUMA movement came into being.
Iraq: For nearly a year, the Obots have told us that Hillary's vote for the authorization of military force in Iraq was unforgivable. Quite a few Kossacks tried to convey the impression that Hillary started the war.
What about Joe Biden? He voted the same way Hillary voted. He was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He insisted that Iraq had WMDs. He was far more vocal than Hillary in his support of Bush's invasion plans.
That's very different, the Obots argue. Joe has a penis, and his last name isn't Clinton. Thus, he may be forgiven; Hillary is damned forever.
A few Obots might want to claim that Biden redeemed himself through the following actions:
However, in 2007, Biden wrote a resolution calling for the repeal of the 2002 measure, making opposition to “the surge” a key tactic in getting his new resolution passed. In April, 2008, Senator Biden proclaimed the surge a failure before hearing the testimony of General David Petraeus, later saying that nothing Petraeus said had changed his view.This "redemption" scenario has a problem: Obama did not support Biden's "repeal" proposal. Obama did support a very similar proposal introduced a short time later -- by Hillary Clinton.
And the surge is yet another of those pesky issues on which Obama has reversed himself (as Biden has not). Obama even removed his former criticisms of the surge from his website. See here and here.
I don't mean to harp on Joe Biden. Actually, I like the guy. I like him so much that I will work tirelessly to make him president ASAP if the Democrats win in November.
I don't think Obama will be the next president. But if that prediction is wrong, don't be surprised to see a fairly quick impeachment, since Fat Tony appears to be getting ready to sing. (More about that soon.) So whom should a President Biden pick as VP? I'm thinking Gore...
The roll call: Need I state the obvious? If Hillary stood no chance of pulling off an upset, the roll call would not have been rigged.
Romney: Looks like he'll be McCain's choice. What can I say? Yuk.
11 comments:
I don't think Romney would be the pick...I am wondering about Guiliani. Which would be worst than Romney, believe it or not.
You think Obama is bad on privatization- you ain't seen nothing yet.
And McCain will have his hands full with Guiliani's ego taking center stage.
Let's hope it's not.
If McCain is truly smart- it will be a woman.
It was an amazing speech. I really enjoyed it when I heard Hillary give it last year.
The Obama nomination will go down in history as the stupidest thing the Democrats ever did.
You are way too kind about Obama's speech. It was hideous, badly delivered, but of course Obama is not an orator. He has all the passion of a tenured college professor six months from retirement. He also lifted from Hillary Clinton and MLK. It was awful.
If anybody was responsible for the Edwards' story, it was the Obama team. Think of Hull and Ryan in Illinois.
Sarah Palin is how the GOP can win. The few who vote on issues are statistically insignificant in POTUS elections. More voters vote on things like 'name recognition' than on issues. Palin will command amazing media coverage and attention. For a lot of people she'll be their Beatles. In all seriousness, I think it would be great if she and Obama played a one-on-one basketball game.
Abbey
I don't know what kind of lawyers Rezko actually uses; however, it would seem to me in his best interest to sing now before Obama actually wins the WH. Once Obama wins then the investigation can be shut down and Rezko can get lost in the system. I really believe an Obama win would be the absolute worst thing for the guy because no sitting president would pardon their partner in crime. It would be much better for Obama to keep him soundly locked away. A pardon would be tantamount to admitting wrong doing and open the door for action. But of course, does anyone actually believe that a corrupt Dem congress would impeach the guy they rigged the nomination for?
I'm one of those readers who've been coming by a lot less frequently since you moved away from your initial support of Obama to Hillary. I started out as a Kucinich supporter, knew that campaign would fold, moved to Edwards (whoops), finally, and without a lot of enthusiasm to Obama. It seemed to me that the number of voters who had already decided they would never under any circumstances want Hillary in office (what is it, 49%?) was a daunting hurdle. Also, I was deeply disappointed in the mealy-moused response to the cries for war by a majority of democrats, and Hillary's hawkish support for invading Iraq, at least in the early going.
Over time, Obama has impressed me a lot. I like that he seems to have ice water in his veins. I like that he seems to have plans that take a long time to unfold, that he knew, for example, the primary season was not going to be over on Super Tuesday. I like that he's smart. I like that he gets people fired up.
Your disinfatuation with Obama is clear, and clearly articulated. Among other factors, I recognize these: 1) Obots. I cringe at every line you quote from this crowd, wherever they slog and blog, but, in all likelihood, most of them are probably on Clearasil. Among less annoying Obama supporters are Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson, Caroline Kennedy, and Susan Eisenhower. You'll find some others as well, including (I believe) most former Hillary supporters, including Hillary and Bill themselves and my personal favorite, Wes Clark. 2) Shady dealings. Here, I'm going to have to confess to being one of those less than fully-informed readers who hasn't delved into the Rezko dealings, the voter suppression accusations, and all the rest. I rest, lazily, on the fact that neither Patrick Fitzgerald (whom I admire) nor Karl Rove (whom I loathe) have been able to make anything stick here. On voter suppression, the fact that Brad Friedman hasn't blown the whistle has kept me from investigating further. 3) Unreadiness. Here I see the strongest objection, but it pales by comparison with McCain's readiness to start several more wars, to cozy up to the right and appoint more Scalias to the bench and worse. McCain seems to be genuinely losing it. Today's pick of Sarah Palin may prove brilliant, but, at first blush, he couldn't have handed the Democrats a better gift. Will this hardcore far right-winger with two years of experience as governor of Alaska really appeal to PUMAs? (I know you've raised many more objections than those I've listed, including 4) University of Chicago economists. Yes, Ugh. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed on this one.)
A final point: The race card. Again, it is appalling and unacceptable that you have to put up with this kind of offense. Did the Obama campaign play race? Did Hillary? In my opinion, neither. The closest call was Bill's North Carolina Jesse Jackson comments, but, frankly, that struck me as political realism, not racism. One thing that's impressed me in Obama's campaign is that he seems strongly opposed to crying race as an excuse for not doing well. But here's the fact: Given the history of this country, there is much more chance that the race issue will hurt Obama, not help him. There's no doubt that some will not vote for Obama entirely due to race. There's no doubt that subtly or not, race baiting will be used as a tactic of the right. It's been used as a tactic by PUMA supporters: see http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/lost-michell-obama-tapes-tape-1-trailer-hi-def-version/10872281/. And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnR2F4HocfQ. (You can find links to these videos on various pro-Hillary sites, including "downwith democrats.") But even if this video were a product of card-carrying PUMAs (if they're issuing cards) this doesn't seem to me evidence of anything more than stupidity. So, some Obama supporters are stupid, so some PUMAs are stupid. I'm not going to decide who to vote for based on how stupid some minions are.
Let me, as a reasonable Obama supporter, invite you to reconsider your options this election. I don't know if I'm a "Prog Purist," but I'd love to feel some wind that blows the sails of our ship of state to the left. The earth needs it, the economy needs it, the ailing nation needs it.
Whether you do or don't, I will admire your reasonableness, a rare trait. I see that you delve for what used to be sentimentally called "the truth" before that term was deconstructed into dust. Your fair investigations into the 'Whitey" tape and the "fake birth certificate" were unrelenting, even if they didn't produce the results you may have wanted. In all, yours is an opinion that has come to matter to me, and I wanted a chance to offer these thoughts.
"I don't know what kind of lawyers Rezko actually uses; however, it would seem to me in his best interest to sing now before Obama actually wins the WH. Once Obama wins then the investigation can be shut down and Rezko can get lost in the system. "
it never occurred to you that there might be NOTHING to sing about. Why do you assume there's any wrong doing involving Obama, because you "feel" like it ? if there was anything involving Obama, he would have sing long before, they would have gave him the best deal possible to be able to nail down Obama ! And I don't think Obama will try to replicate Clinton presidential pardon scandal.
You can complain all day long about obots hating Hillary, but what you're doing is not better, it's even worse.
If you've read Evelyn Pringle -- and others -- you would know that Obama's culpability has been established beyond the point of rational debate. The man is a crook, and his crime was essentially the same as Duke Cunningham's: He steered public monies to scoundrels who pocketed the loot while making donations to Obama and Blagojevich. In other words, the taxpayers funded partisan campaigns.
I was lauded when I wrote this about Cunningham. Apparently, Obama may do what Duke may not.
If you've read Evelyn Pringle -- and others -- you would know that Obama's culpability has been established beyond the point of rational debate.
Ok, so why isn't he indicted then ? If it's so rational beyond debate (since when are you rational btw?), why has the Republican justice machine not taking care of it before ? Now it's too late, if the Republicans would go after him now, it would be easy for him to defend himself against what would be perceived as a politically motivated attack, the same after he's elected. I understand you WANT to believe Evelyn Pringle, but why isn't he indicted then ? You have the burden of the proof here.
It's not like McCain or Hillary never had business deals / money raised for them by convicted felons. Stop pretend Obama has to be above the standards you set for other politicians. You're just trying to justify your decision to hate Obama after a skirmish with some of his crazy supporters on KOS.
For any rational person, these kind of attacks against Obama are all in the same categories: smears without evidence. Exactly the kind of attacks you were defending the Clintons against in the past. Now you're peddling them... how nice.
Just for fun-There have been different theories about the orange pantsuit and was it a shout-out to some group or other(including PUMA). In fact, it was selected because it looked the best on the Pepsi Center stage. I saw a photo taken Tuesday of stagehands holding 4 different colored pantsuit jackets under the lights-including the orange one.
TJ
Post a Comment