Hillary pretty much demonstrated her "tolerance" for minorities and her "support" for the working class by oppressing the right of casino employees to support Obama.
It's funny because about a week ago I likened Obama's "change, change, change" campaign to that of a 6th grader running for class president...new basketballs and better pizza!!
Obama got his ass handed to him last night...sorry to say...I have to admit that Wells' impassioned explanation the other day perked my interest in Barack, and I found myself rooting for him last night...but his stumbling and reluctance to be aggressive really hurt him...and his reaction when asked about being Muslim and sworn in with the koran was embarrassing...he recoiled as if he was a german in 1942 asked if he was harborng Jews..."let's set the record the straight, I'm Christian, and I was sworn in with a BIBLE"...I realize he's catering to a christian base, but his hasty identification with Christianity and failure to acknowledge a respect for all belief systems seemed like pandering to me. This should bother you whether you're Christian, Jewish, agnostic, or atheist...
I don't know, I didn't hear any of the talking heads mention it after the roundtable, so maybe I'm making too big of a deal...and if Chris Matthews didn't mention it, it must not be important!!
That sham debate micro-managed by weapons maker GE -- I mean, MSNBC -- was a death rattle for our country. Matthews and Russert, the Laurel and Hardy of corporate whores.
And Obama sucks in debate form. Which doesn't indicate that he can go toe to toe with folks under pressure.
Meanwhile, Team Bush is still corrupt, still fucking us daily.
delbomber - are you not getting that there are still daily accusations (for lack of a better word) on right-wing radio and blogarrhea claiming that he is Muslim and was sworn into the office of Illinois state senator over the Koran?
bmc, I know...it's not setting the record straight that was bothersome, he SHOULD do that...it was the body language and tone...he seemed disgusted by the idea, as if there is something wrong with being muslim.
He seems like a very tolerant and understanding guy, I don't think he really has anything against muslims, I'm just surprised that more opportunists haven't jumped on him for his response.
Did you see B cam, with the same synch sound as A cam, but includes the question and more of Hillary's wind up? I've only seen A cam with the head trim. If it were a movie, they'd loop "from" to "for." http://youtube.com/watch?v=pl-W3IXRTHU
Just what we need. Obama reaching out to praise one of the most corrupt administrations ever:
I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.
del: "I realize he's catering to a christian base, but his hasty identification with Christianity and failure to acknowledge a respect for all belief systems seemed like pandering to me."
Not as much pandering as politicians who try to wedge Creationism into education...
christian: I don't think he's praising Reagan's administration, as much as rationalizing its appeal.
Yes, I still have nightmares about Reagan. And Ollie North. And James Watt. Rush Limbaugh. Wally George. Freedom Fighters. Falwell. Izod. Legwarmers. RED DAWN. Yakov Smirnoff...
"I don't think he's praising Reagan's administration, as much as rationalizing its appeal."
No, DZ. It's just called pandering.
Edwards retort:
"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said Edwards.
"He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."
"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
If it was pandering, he'd use more specific adjectives to describe Reagan.
>"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to >the American people, to the middle class to the >working people," said Edwards.
Yeah, I wish he could be like a certain hypocrite who helped send the family members of those brackets off to a war which is putting them in the
worst financial shape since the Depression...
"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
No, you'll just hide behind his policies and speak out against them when they're unpopular...
Now that I think about it, why is it pandering when Obama says something nice about Reagan, but it's not pandering when Edwards tries to keep Kerry from speaking out against the war?
Well, I generally bash Reagan, because of the way that other Republicans and Republicrats idolize him, while trashing Carter and Clinton. Obama just focuses on what he considers to be Reagan's "positive" traits. Pandering would be if he tried to play up the "small business owner", "reverse discrimination" anti-government angle common with Repug candidates.
Even using Reagan as a model for anything other than somebody who busted unions, dismantled public health and education, ignored AIDS, the environment and appealed to bigots as he's done his whole political life, gives power to the right wing myth about Reagan's "positive traits." It's cynical and revealing.
Look, as long as he's more popular than even Clinton, trashing Reagan will not accomplish anything for Obama in the race. Edwards can speak out all he wants against him, but he needs to win votes, not complain. The American public isn't going to automatically shift to Edwards' positions, just because they don't like Bush. After all, it took them this long to get off their jingoistic high with Iraq. The public has to gradually be "de-programmed" off of Republican propaganda. And like it or not, Reagan is considered a sacred cow to that same public.
Political differences need to be resolved first, before the public is unanimous on issues other than the war and impeachment. Unlike the Clinton years, the moderates and semi-fascists aren't calling the shots. But they still run the machinery. And moving them out of the way requires persuasion. Obama recognizes this reality more than Edwards. It might seem cynical to you, but it's still leagues above the petty name-calling which has turned off potential voters for decades.
Change is slow, man. Deal with it, and work with what you got.
comment #1
scooterzz
says ...
was that 'dear prudence' clip intentional?
Posted by scooterzz
at January 15, 2008 10:48 PM
comment #2
PastePotPete
says ...
That's terrific.
Posted by PastePotPete
at January 15, 2008 11:33 PM
comment #3
qwiggles
says ...
Better prep that "Atonement is alive again!" post...
Posted by qwiggles
at January 15, 2008 11:54 PM
comment #4
D.Z.
says ...
Hillary pretty much demonstrated her "tolerance" for minorities and her "support" for the working class by oppressing the right of casino employees to support Obama.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 16, 2008 1:06 AM
comment #5
PastePotPete
says ...
Your constant inexplicable comments just prove JeffMCM right, DZ. Please stop. None of us want that.
Posted by PastePotPete
at January 16, 2008 2:13 AM
comment #6
IndyNick
says ...
Even as a Hillary supporter, I can see the brilliance in this. Great job!
Posted by IndyNick
at January 16, 2008 7:03 AM
comment #7
rocco
says ...
It's funny because about a week ago I likened Obama's "change, change, change" campaign to that of a 6th grader running for class president...new basketballs and better pizza!!
Obama got his ass handed to him last night...sorry to say...I have to admit that Wells' impassioned explanation the other day perked my interest in Barack, and I found myself rooting for him last night...but his stumbling and reluctance to be aggressive really hurt him...and his reaction when asked about being Muslim and sworn in with the koran was embarrassing...he recoiled as if he was a german in 1942 asked if he was harborng Jews..."let's set the record the straight, I'm Christian, and I was sworn in with a BIBLE"...I realize he's catering to a christian base, but his hasty identification with Christianity and failure to acknowledge a respect for all belief systems seemed like pandering to me. This should bother you whether you're Christian, Jewish, agnostic, or atheist...
I don't know, I didn't hear any of the talking heads mention it after the roundtable, so maybe I'm making too big of a deal...and if Chris Matthews didn't mention it, it must not be important!!
Posted by rocco
at January 16, 2008 7:06 AM
comment #8
lazarus
says ...
By this analogy, if she gets elected, does Daniel Day-Lewis throw the milkshake at her car in Dealey Plaza?
Posted by lazarus
at January 16, 2008 7:44 AM
comment #9
christian
says ...
That sham debate micro-managed by weapons maker GE -- I mean, MSNBC -- was a death rattle for our country. Matthews and Russert, the Laurel and Hardy of corporate whores.
And Obama sucks in debate form. Which doesn't indicate that he can go toe to toe with folks under pressure.
Meanwhile, Team Bush is still corrupt, still fucking us daily.
Posted by christian
at January 16, 2008 8:15 AM
comment #10
T. Holly
says ...
It indicates what? He can or can't? Or it's just not an indicator?
The real hollywood campaign is here:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117979117.html?categoryId=1064&cs=1
If I had the time, I'd make a Hillary list and an Obama list.
Posted by T. Holly
at January 16, 2008 8:23 AM
comment #11
mutinyco
says ...
"Her pussy gets so wet..."
Posted by mutinyco
at January 16, 2008 8:33 AM
comment #12
T. Holly
says ...
Yeah, just thinking about this stuff.
Posted by T. Holly
at January 16, 2008 8:51 AM
comment #13
bmcintire
says ...
delbomber - are you not getting that there are still daily accusations (for lack of a better word) on right-wing radio and blogarrhea claiming that he is Muslim and was sworn into the office of Illinois state senator over the Koran?
Posted by bmcintire
at January 16, 2008 10:37 AM
comment #14
rocco
says ...
bmc, I know...it's not setting the record straight that was bothersome, he SHOULD do that...it was the body language and tone...he seemed disgusted by the idea, as if there is something wrong with being muslim.
He seems like a very tolerant and understanding guy, I don't think he really has anything against muslims, I'm just surprised that more opportunists haven't jumped on him for his response.
Posted by rocco
at January 16, 2008 11:00 AM
comment #15
T. Holly
says ...
Did you see B cam, with the same synch sound as A cam, but includes the question and more of Hillary's wind up? I've only seen A cam with the head trim. If it were a movie, they'd loop "from" to "for."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pl-W3IXRTHU
Posted by T. Holly
at January 16, 2008 1:47 PM
comment #16
christian
says ...
Just what we need. Obama reaching out to praise one of the most corrupt administrations ever:
I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.
Posted by christian
at January 16, 2008 2:56 PM
comment #17
T. Holly
says ...
Why stop there c?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP1esS0AEzk
Posted by T. Holly
at January 16, 2008 4:13 PM
comment #18
rocco
says ...
oh christian, you do so well and then get hysterical about Reagan and lose credibility...
Posted by rocco
at January 16, 2008 7:13 PM
comment #19
D.Z.
says ...
del: "I realize he's catering to a christian base, but his hasty identification with Christianity and failure to acknowledge a respect for all belief systems seemed like pandering to me."
Not as much pandering as politicians who try to wedge Creationism into education...
christian: I don't think he's praising Reagan's administration, as much as rationalizing its appeal.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 16, 2008 7:16 PM
comment #20
christian
says ...
Yes, I still have nightmares about Reagan. And Ollie North. And James Watt. Rush Limbaugh. Wally George. Freedom Fighters. Falwell. Izod. Legwarmers. RED DAWN. Yakov Smirnoff...
Posted by christian
at January 16, 2008 9:49 PM
comment #21
BurmaShave
says ...
Hasn't this been the first thought of anyone who has watched ELECTION in the past few months?
Posted by BurmaShave
at January 17, 2008 3:15 AM
comment #22
christian
says ...
"I don't think he's praising Reagan's administration, as much as rationalizing its appeal."
No, DZ. It's just called pandering.
Edwards retort:
"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said Edwards.
"He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."
"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
Posted by christian
at January 17, 2008 1:06 PM
comment #23
D.Z.
says ...
christian: "No, DZ. It's just called pandering."
If it was pandering, he'd use more specific adjectives to describe Reagan.
>"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to >the American people, to the middle class to the >working people," said Edwards.
Yeah, I wish he could be like a certain hypocrite who helped send the family members of those brackets off to a war which is putting them in the
worst financial shape since the Depression...
"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
No, you'll just hide behind his policies and speak out against them when they're unpopular...
Posted by D.Z.
at January 17, 2008 3:39 PM
comment #24
D.Z.
says ...
Now that I think about it, why is it pandering when Obama says something nice about Reagan, but it's not pandering when Edwards tries to keep Kerry from speaking out against the war?
Posted by D.Z.
at January 17, 2008 3:41 PM
comment #25
christian
says ...
It's all pandering.
And I've read enough Reagan bashing from you in the past to know that you're Obama-blinders are on.
Posted by christian
at January 17, 2008 3:46 PM
comment #26
D.Z.
says ...
Well, I generally bash Reagan, because of the way that other Republicans and Republicrats idolize him, while trashing Carter and Clinton. Obama just focuses on what he considers to be Reagan's "positive" traits. Pandering would be if he tried to play up the "small business owner", "reverse discrimination" anti-government angle common with Repug candidates.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 17, 2008 6:04 PM
comment #27
christian
says ...
Even using Reagan as a model for anything other than somebody who busted unions, dismantled public health and education, ignored AIDS, the environment and appealed to bigots as he's done his whole political life, gives power to the right wing myth about Reagan's "positive traits." It's cynical and revealing.
Posted by christian
at January 17, 2008 6:52 PM
comment #28
D.Z.
says ...
Look, as long as he's more popular than even Clinton, trashing Reagan will not accomplish anything for Obama in the race. Edwards can speak out all he wants against him, but he needs to win votes, not complain. The American public isn't going to automatically shift to Edwards' positions, just because they don't like Bush. After all, it took them this long to get off their jingoistic high with Iraq. The public has to gradually be "de-programmed" off of Republican propaganda. And like it or not, Reagan is considered a sacred cow to that same public.
Political differences need to be resolved first, before the public is unanimous on issues other than the war and impeachment. Unlike the Clinton years, the moderates and semi-fascists aren't calling the shots. But they still run the machinery. And moving them out of the way requires persuasion. Obama recognizes this reality more than Edwards. It might seem cynical to you, but it's still leagues above the petty name-calling which has turned off potential voters for decades.
Change is slow, man. Deal with it, and work with what you got.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 18, 2008 12:02 AM
comment #29
BurmaShave
says ...
Obama came to bury Reagan, not to praise him.
Posted by BurmaShave
at January 18, 2008 5:40 AM
comment #30
christian
says ...
"trashing Reagan will not accomplish anything for Obama in the race."
But praising him will? Isn't it time for the Dems to stop kowtowing to those who've been consistently and destructively wrong the past 8 years?
Posted by christian
at January 18, 2008 9:56 AM
comment #31
D.Z.
says ...
christian: "But praising him will?"
Yep. He's got to win over the people who like Reagan, but hate Bush.
"Isn't it time for the Dems to stop kowtowing to those who've been consistently and destructively wrong the past 8 years?"
You mean 28 years. And yes, it is time. But the Dems still have to get as many people on board as they can, in order for change to take place.
Posted by D.Z.
at January 18, 2008 1:20 PM
comment #32
affiliatesreview
says ...
really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review
Posted by affiliatesreview
at May 16, 2011 12:45 AM