(from instaputz)
I guess old hawkeye's proofing his own stuff now? (or should I say "proofing his owm stuff mow?)
As Instaputz says: "If McCain can't spell his name properly, how can we expect him to beat the terrorists?"
Truly.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
JOHM MCCAIM FOR PRESIDEMT?
This is a screen shot from the end of Grandpa's latest ad:
(from instaputz)
I guess old hawkeye's proofing his own stuff now? (or should I say "proofing his owm stuff mow?)
As Instaputz says: "If McCain can't spell his name properly, how can we expect him to beat the terrorists?"
Truly.
(from instaputz)
I guess old hawkeye's proofing his own stuff now? (or should I say "proofing his owm stuff mow?)
As Instaputz says: "If McCain can't spell his name properly, how can we expect him to beat the terrorists?"
Truly.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
GRANDPA STRIKES AGAIN
Yep. You guessed it -Gramps just can't get the whole sunni-shia Al-Qaeda thing straight:
McCain: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
Petraeus: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
McCain: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall?
Petraeus: No, no sir.
McCain: Or Sunnis or anybody else then? Al Qaeda continues to try to assert themselves in Mosul, is that correct?
Petraeus: It is senator, as you saw on the chart. The area of operation of Al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in terms of controlling areas they controlled as little as a year and a half ago.
Think the "journalists" will pause their circle-jerk around grampy to comment on it? NAAAAAAAH!
ONLY ONE QUESTION FOR PETRAEUS
How will we know when we've won in Iraq?
Every party line bloviation from the cheerleaders insists that we're working toward something, and every voice supporting our continued occupation says that we can leave when we've won. Ok then, how will we know?
Every party line bloviation from the cheerleaders insists that we're working toward something, and every voice supporting our continued occupation says that we can leave when we've won. Ok then, how will we know?
Friday, April 04, 2008
RANDI RHODES SUSPENSION
Oh boy.
Air America host Randi Rhodes has been suspended because, while delivering a "standup routine" off the air at an Air America event for an affiliate, she called Hillary Clinton a "dirty f*king whore".
Over the line a tad? Yeah.
Look, it's one thing to slam a candidate for something they've said or done, but this is pure ad hominem name-calling of the most offensive kind. Even that could be defensible if it were funny, but it's not.
I understand what she was trying to do -be shocking and over the top, but in and of itself that isn't funny -particularly not in this context. Rhodes is noted for her pitt-bull style of political commentary and so a certain amount of aggression is expected, and because it's expected, it's not funny when she goes over the top. If it were unexpected -it would be funny. For example if Mother Theresa called Hillary a "dirty f*cking whore."
This is the same thing Michael Richards was trying to do, and just as when he did it, it wasn't funny. In his case it wasn't funny because he already has a "crazy" type of persona. Crazy and racist isn't a funny juxtoposition because it's not a far enough jump, i.e. you might expect a crazy person to utter racist statements.
The unexpected is funny -as an analogy consider the difference between people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a morgue, and people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a fancy dress dinner party.
In the latter case -the more outrageously disgusting the dead body is the funnier it is, whereas adding disgusting features to the body in the former scenario doesn't make it any more funny.
Additionally, Air America was completely justified in suspending her. True, this was not on the air, but it was at an Air America sponsored event, and the network can't be seen as sanctioning that kind of behavior -it'd kill them.
Moreover this is not a case of "censorship. The 1st Amendment only protects people from having their speech restricted by the government or by those acting under government authority. Having an FCC license doesn't make them a government entity any more than having a liquor license makes a liquor store into one. Air America is a private entity and is perfectly within its rights to have a policy restricting the behavior of its employees at one of its events. I would think they were incredibly stupid if they didn't suspend her.
So now Rhodes has been suspended and her career is in jeopardy, which is a shame because she has proven herself to be one of the more capable talk-radio voices because of her skill in distilling the issues and presenting them in an "average Joe" format.
Finally, it was horribly myopic of her not to realize that in the YouTube age -anything you say or do in public can be videoed and used to nail you.
Ironically, the person she was slamming (the Tigress of Tuzla as some have called her) found that out before she did
Air America host Randi Rhodes has been suspended because, while delivering a "standup routine" off the air at an Air America event for an affiliate, she called Hillary Clinton a "dirty f*king whore".
Over the line a tad? Yeah.
Look, it's one thing to slam a candidate for something they've said or done, but this is pure ad hominem name-calling of the most offensive kind. Even that could be defensible if it were funny, but it's not.
I understand what she was trying to do -be shocking and over the top, but in and of itself that isn't funny -particularly not in this context. Rhodes is noted for her pitt-bull style of political commentary and so a certain amount of aggression is expected, and because it's expected, it's not funny when she goes over the top. If it were unexpected -it would be funny. For example if Mother Theresa called Hillary a "dirty f*cking whore."
This is the same thing Michael Richards was trying to do, and just as when he did it, it wasn't funny. In his case it wasn't funny because he already has a "crazy" type of persona. Crazy and racist isn't a funny juxtoposition because it's not a far enough jump, i.e. you might expect a crazy person to utter racist statements.
The unexpected is funny -as an analogy consider the difference between people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a morgue, and people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a fancy dress dinner party.
In the latter case -the more outrageously disgusting the dead body is the funnier it is, whereas adding disgusting features to the body in the former scenario doesn't make it any more funny.
Additionally, Air America was completely justified in suspending her. True, this was not on the air, but it was at an Air America sponsored event, and the network can't be seen as sanctioning that kind of behavior -it'd kill them.
Moreover this is not a case of "censorship. The 1st Amendment only protects people from having their speech restricted by the government or by those acting under government authority. Having an FCC license doesn't make them a government entity any more than having a liquor license makes a liquor store into one. Air America is a private entity and is perfectly within its rights to have a policy restricting the behavior of its employees at one of its events. I would think they were incredibly stupid if they didn't suspend her.
So now Rhodes has been suspended and her career is in jeopardy, which is a shame because she has proven herself to be one of the more capable talk-radio voices because of her skill in distilling the issues and presenting them in an "average Joe" format.
Finally, it was horribly myopic of her not to realize that in the YouTube age -anything you say or do in public can be videoed and used to nail you.
Ironically, the person she was slamming (the Tigress of Tuzla as some have called her) found that out before she did
Thursday, April 03, 2008
GRANDPA CONTINUES HIS FREE RIDE
Gee the MSM has completely absolved John McCainBush of his senior moments, and is happily ignoring his insisting on at least 4 occasions that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together to take over Iraq. Worse yet his minions like Sloppy Joe are spreading the ^&*% even more.
*sigh*
History Lesson (in a nutshell) folks:
"Al Qaeda" is the name given by us to the movement that was started by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri based on the teachings of Said Qutb. Qutb was a Sunni Muslim from Egypt who, while attending school in America in the 1950's, became disenchanted with western ideas because he thought that they were leading to immorality and decadence (I mean boys and girls were actually dancing together for crying out loud!)
He left America and went back to Egypt where he joined the Muslim Brotherhood (another sunni extremist group founded in the 1920s.) and wrote a book called "Milestones" which stated that Egyptian leaders had become so corrupted that they were no longer to be considered muslims and therefore could be killed. Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government for conspiracy.
This book and Qutb's teachings influenced Ayman Al-Zawahiri who, after Qutb's execution went into hiding forming a terrorist cell to implement Qutb's teachings. This cell later became the Egyptian "Islamic Jihad" which tried a coup which Egypt defeated. Al Zawahiri was imprisoned. After he was released he met and became close with Usama Bin Laden who went to Afghanistan to help the Mujhaddin fight the USSR. The two reunited after that war, and Al Zawahiri merged his group with Bin Laden's.
There's much more detail to the story, but the point is that Al-Qaeda is a Sunni muslim group. Iran is a Shiite state.
McCain claims that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Qaeda against the US effort in Iraq. Here's what Al Zawahiri says:
*sigh*
History Lesson (in a nutshell) folks:
"Al Qaeda" is the name given by us to the movement that was started by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri based on the teachings of Said Qutb. Qutb was a Sunni Muslim from Egypt who, while attending school in America in the 1950's, became disenchanted with western ideas because he thought that they were leading to immorality and decadence (I mean boys and girls were actually dancing together for crying out loud!)
He left America and went back to Egypt where he joined the Muslim Brotherhood (another sunni extremist group founded in the 1920s.) and wrote a book called "Milestones" which stated that Egyptian leaders had become so corrupted that they were no longer to be considered muslims and therefore could be killed. Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government for conspiracy.
This book and Qutb's teachings influenced Ayman Al-Zawahiri who, after Qutb's execution went into hiding forming a terrorist cell to implement Qutb's teachings. This cell later became the Egyptian "Islamic Jihad" which tried a coup which Egypt defeated. Al Zawahiri was imprisoned. After he was released he met and became close with Usama Bin Laden who went to Afghanistan to help the Mujhaddin fight the USSR. The two reunited after that war, and Al Zawahiri merged his group with Bin Laden's.
There's much more detail to the story, but the point is that Al-Qaeda is a Sunni muslim group. Iran is a Shiite state.
McCain claims that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Qaeda against the US effort in Iraq. Here's what Al Zawahiri says:
"The dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation (US attacking Iran) will be in the interest of [Al Qaeda] if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and [Al Qaeda], except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region." (emphasis and parentheses mine).
"With regard to Iraq, Iran achieved an agreement with the Americans before the latter's entry into Iraq. The agreement provided for partitioning Iraq. The Shiite militias trained, funded, and armed by Iran for years advanced violently and quickly into Iraq following the collapse of the Saddam regime. They were merged into the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi security services. They were and remain the Crusader occupier's paws used to strike at Muslims in Iraq"
Oh yeah, but Al Qaeda's training with Iran too?
Thank God McCain's got that Foreign Policy experience and has "passed the Commander in Chief threshold".
Keep on talking grandpa- right into insignificance.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
MOVING UP IN THE WORLD?
HEY! I got "HuffPost's pick" for a comment I left regarding this article by Carlotta Cooper at Huffington Post about how Obama "risks alienating Clinton women and blue-collar supporters" -the subject of which -contrary to the headline- seems to be that if Obama doesn't say anything about his supporters asking Hillary to bow-out that he'll piss-off Hillary's supporters particularly her "base" of "older white women", and yet when he came out and said that Hillary has every right to stay in the race he was patronizing. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Here's what I said:
Not bad for an armchair pundit, eh?
Here's what I said:
What amazes me about when people toss around the term "older white women" is that they ignore the first two words of the phrase and zero in on the third. This primary has in more ways than one become a decision about whether we want to hand the torch off to the next generation or keep it in the hands of the current older white ruling class.
Senator Clinton regardless her gender represents all the facets and foibles of the past. Would electing her be a positive milestone in our nation's history? Certainly. Would it dramatically change the power structure in Washington? Not a scintilla. She has spent her entire career trying to be accepted by the Washington circle tragically to find at last that a majority in the nation no longer want that in a president-a fact made all the more apparent by the convergence of two factors: the desperation to scrape off the slime of the bush years and the wild success of an unlikely candidate -Senator Obama.
The older white women need to realize that Clinton would provide them a Pyrrhic victory at best in the gender wars and that, for the sake of their progeny, they need to hand off that torch.
Not bad for an armchair pundit, eh?
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
STOCKHOLM SYNDROME?
This is a picture of Hillary:
With Richard Mellon Scaife. Yes. That Richard Mellon Scaife.
She's giving an interview to his newspaper. Read that last sentence again.
What the hell is she doing in the same room with this guy?
This is, after all, the the Fuhrer of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
This is the the same guy who dedicated all his resources to destroying her and her husband for a decade!
-It's not as if this is some sort of reconciliation meeting.
-It's not as if her campaign needs his newspaper's coverage
-It's not as if his rag sheet is ever going to endorse her
SO WTF IS SHE DOING THERE?
Must be Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe BPS?
Friday, March 21, 2008
BULLSH*T: THE SEQUEL
What was it that Onion reporter was saying about how partial he was to Hillary's bullsh*t?
I guess she just wanted to give him more.
I guess she just wanted to give him more.
MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN OLBERMANN?
Wow. This is really an amazing clip.
Chris Wallace of Faux News uncharacteristically "calls BS" on the Fox & Friends gaggle of vacuous douchebags for harping for over 2 hours on Barack Obama's having used the phrase "typical white person" extemporaneously in an interview on a local Philly radio talk show.
The expressions on the faces of the Fox & Friends crew as they span the gamut from deer-in-the-headlights to disgust are priceless! Watch this:
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but one gets the impressions both that Chris Wallace is perhaps plagued by the guilt of his arc from old journalism to sleeze and of having been truly touched by Obama's speech on race. It's great theatre at any rate.
Chris Wallace of Faux News uncharacteristically "calls BS" on the Fox & Friends gaggle of vacuous douchebags for harping for over 2 hours on Barack Obama's having used the phrase "typical white person" extemporaneously in an interview on a local Philly radio talk show.
The expressions on the faces of the Fox & Friends crew as they span the gamut from deer-in-the-headlights to disgust are priceless! Watch this:
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but one gets the impressions both that Chris Wallace is perhaps plagued by the guilt of his arc from old journalism to sleeze and of having been truly touched by Obama's speech on race. It's great theatre at any rate.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
THE WRIGHT STUFF
So much has been made regarding Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright that I don't think I need to restate the controversy here.
What is completely overlooked here -even by Barack Obama himself- is that the criticisms of Obama regarding this issue show not just a fundamental misunderstanding of black vs. white issues, but a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
Consider the chief argument utilized by Obama bashers: how could he sit in those pews week in week out for 20 years listening to that man and getting his spiritual guidance and yet disagree with his views?
Let's set aside for the moment the flawed assumption that every sermon by Wright was as filled with invective as the moments from the ones depicted in the circulating clips are. Even assuming that the clips were culled from services where the entire sermon was as accusatory (an unlikely premise in and of itself -I mean I assume the man had to take a breather at some point!) these are but 3 or 4 sermons in the entire 26 year career of Reverend Wright.
But for arguments sake let's assume that the above is true and that every Sunday Reverend Wright gave an agressive invective filled accusatory sermon from his pulpit. Why assume that anyone who sat in those pews must have instantly agreed with every word? This is the issue that the controversy brings up for me -that people assume that churchgoers are sponges soaking up religious messages to go out into the world and squeeze them out. It assumes that somehow religion erases intellect and that parishioners do not process sermons or even think about them but merely store them. In other words it assumes that churchgoers are only passive and not active.
As a practicing Christian I find that patronizing if not offensive. The same kind of thinking was what led people to fear that Kennedy would slavishly enforce the Pope's will in Rome. It's ignorant and bigoted.
As any Christian can tell you (and though I speak with only catholic experience I can safely assume is true of most denominations -they do all follow the same text after all) the people are the church. Not the pastors, not the heirarchy, not any one person. The community.
This means, of course that the community is going to be filled with a variety of people -they are as individual as a sub group as is any super-group.
For example, I have about as much in common politically with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as I do with Rush Limbaugh. Donohue and I are both catholics and yet and I don't assume that the presence of either of us in the pews is a reason for the other to leave the faith or that either of us would be caught dead letting the other be assumed to be speaking for all catholics.
Closer to home there is a priest in my parish who actually proclaims himself to be the "Dr. Laura of the parish". Why this would be cause to brag is a mystery to any sane person, and yet he does a great job as a teacher and catechist for the confirmation classes. I have heard several sermons from him that I have disagreed with and even walked out on one (though truth be told I made an effort not to draw attention to myself in doing so). The point is that his objectionable sermons do not detract from the power of the messages of Jesus because I am able th reflect on both his words and Jesus' on my own and come to my own conclusion.
This is where Obama has missed the mark IMO: in not making plain or clear enough what his experience was in the church. Some might say that that is too personal and they'd be right, but at this time and in his present position he has no choice and cannot keep it private any longer.
Obama's speech on race was brilliant and will be talked about for generations to come, but the other door to be opened from this episode is one that Democrats seem to have even a harder time opening than the one about race -that is, the one about religion. We also need to have a serious discussion in this country between the religious and non-religious on the nature of religion and how it affects and whether it should or shouldn't affect both the religious and non-religious.
Take Obama's painting of the resentment felt by both blacks and whites and you can easily transpose it to religious vs. athiest. Without reciting the entire history of/ litany against the church, Atheists are resentful because they feel that the religious look down on them as somehow inferior, and amoral. While this was true in the past and is probably true in some quarters in the present, it doesn't mean that all religious or even a majority feel this way now. Religious (the majority -who don't view atheists as inferior and amoral) feel that athiests mock their faith as either unintelligent or insane. The resentments by both sides are real and justified, and that's where we are.
Personally, I don't want to convert anyone to my religion. I'm happy if they do, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions about it, but it honestly doesn't affect my judgment of a person. I want to let my religion affect my life and prefer not to be lumped-in with every one else who claims my religion, my denomination or even my parish. To me that's as offensive as lumping me into some group based on the color of my skin or the sound of my last name.
Senator Obama has summed up his relationship with Reverend wright by saying in essence that the whole of the man should not be judged by the most offensive moments of a few of his sermons and this is undeniably true, but he should also challenge those who would criticize his relationship with the pastor of his church to reflect on their own relationships with their own pastors or conversely on how they think a person in a church is affected by that church and whether it is a fair or reasonable impression to hold him to.
What is completely overlooked here -even by Barack Obama himself- is that the criticisms of Obama regarding this issue show not just a fundamental misunderstanding of black vs. white issues, but a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
Consider the chief argument utilized by Obama bashers: how could he sit in those pews week in week out for 20 years listening to that man and getting his spiritual guidance and yet disagree with his views?
Let's set aside for the moment the flawed assumption that every sermon by Wright was as filled with invective as the moments from the ones depicted in the circulating clips are. Even assuming that the clips were culled from services where the entire sermon was as accusatory (an unlikely premise in and of itself -I mean I assume the man had to take a breather at some point!) these are but 3 or 4 sermons in the entire 26 year career of Reverend Wright.
But for arguments sake let's assume that the above is true and that every Sunday Reverend Wright gave an agressive invective filled accusatory sermon from his pulpit. Why assume that anyone who sat in those pews must have instantly agreed with every word? This is the issue that the controversy brings up for me -that people assume that churchgoers are sponges soaking up religious messages to go out into the world and squeeze them out. It assumes that somehow religion erases intellect and that parishioners do not process sermons or even think about them but merely store them. In other words it assumes that churchgoers are only passive and not active.
As a practicing Christian I find that patronizing if not offensive. The same kind of thinking was what led people to fear that Kennedy would slavishly enforce the Pope's will in Rome. It's ignorant and bigoted.
As any Christian can tell you (and though I speak with only catholic experience I can safely assume is true of most denominations -they do all follow the same text after all) the people are the church. Not the pastors, not the heirarchy, not any one person. The community.
This means, of course that the community is going to be filled with a variety of people -they are as individual as a sub group as is any super-group.
For example, I have about as much in common politically with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as I do with Rush Limbaugh. Donohue and I are both catholics and yet and I don't assume that the presence of either of us in the pews is a reason for the other to leave the faith or that either of us would be caught dead letting the other be assumed to be speaking for all catholics.
Closer to home there is a priest in my parish who actually proclaims himself to be the "Dr. Laura of the parish". Why this would be cause to brag is a mystery to any sane person, and yet he does a great job as a teacher and catechist for the confirmation classes. I have heard several sermons from him that I have disagreed with and even walked out on one (though truth be told I made an effort not to draw attention to myself in doing so). The point is that his objectionable sermons do not detract from the power of the messages of Jesus because I am able th reflect on both his words and Jesus' on my own and come to my own conclusion.
This is where Obama has missed the mark IMO: in not making plain or clear enough what his experience was in the church. Some might say that that is too personal and they'd be right, but at this time and in his present position he has no choice and cannot keep it private any longer.
Obama's speech on race was brilliant and will be talked about for generations to come, but the other door to be opened from this episode is one that Democrats seem to have even a harder time opening than the one about race -that is, the one about religion. We also need to have a serious discussion in this country between the religious and non-religious on the nature of religion and how it affects and whether it should or shouldn't affect both the religious and non-religious.
Take Obama's painting of the resentment felt by both blacks and whites and you can easily transpose it to religious vs. athiest. Without reciting the entire history of/ litany against the church, Atheists are resentful because they feel that the religious look down on them as somehow inferior, and amoral. While this was true in the past and is probably true in some quarters in the present, it doesn't mean that all religious or even a majority feel this way now. Religious (the majority -who don't view atheists as inferior and amoral) feel that athiests mock their faith as either unintelligent or insane. The resentments by both sides are real and justified, and that's where we are.
Personally, I don't want to convert anyone to my religion. I'm happy if they do, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions about it, but it honestly doesn't affect my judgment of a person. I want to let my religion affect my life and prefer not to be lumped-in with every one else who claims my religion, my denomination or even my parish. To me that's as offensive as lumping me into some group based on the color of my skin or the sound of my last name.
Senator Obama has summed up his relationship with Reverend wright by saying in essence that the whole of the man should not be judged by the most offensive moments of a few of his sermons and this is undeniably true, but he should also challenge those who would criticize his relationship with the pastor of his church to reflect on their own relationships with their own pastors or conversely on how they think a person in a church is affected by that church and whether it is a fair or reasonable impression to hold him to.
OH DEAR
It just keeps getting better.
MCCAIN: PURIM = HALLOWEEN?
When McCain made a foreign policy gaffe in Jordan on Tuesday, it was Sen. Joe Lieberman who quietly pointed out the mistake, giving McCain an opportunity to correct himself in front of the international press corps. In Israel yesterday, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports, Lieberman once again intervened when McCain made an incorrect reference about the Jewish holiday Purim -- by calling the holiday "their version of Halloween here."
BULLSH*T
couldn't resist:
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
And in other news:
BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE
CHICAGO-According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.
"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."
It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.
"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"
After his initial requests for change, the black man rambled nonstop on a variety of unrelated topics, calling for affordable health care, demanding that the government immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposing a $75 billion economic stimulus plan to create new jobs.
"What a wacko," Schaumburg, IL resident Patrick Morledge said.
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
And in other news:
BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE
CHICAGO-According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.
"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."
It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.
"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"
After his initial requests for change, the black man rambled nonstop on a variety of unrelated topics, calling for affordable health care, demanding that the government immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposing a $75 billion economic stimulus plan to create new jobs.
"What a wacko," Schaumburg, IL resident Patrick Morledge said.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
MC-IDIOCY
Apparently John McCain, just like his overlords Bush and Cheney, doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims. And I'm not talking about their doctrinal or historical differences -he just doesn't get who's who:
(video from ABC news via Raw Story)
"it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran"
Common knowledge? That Sunni Al Qaeda is going into Shiite Iran and receiving training?
Gee who knew those Iranian Mullah's were so tolerant?
And leave it to good ol' GOP BFF Joe Lieberman to have to straighten out ol "straight talk"
One final thought: This is the man Hillary thinks has passed the CIC "threshold" and, along with her, has the experience to be president?
UPDATE (3/20/08): Apparently this wasn't simply a one time slip but McSkippy has repeated this both before and since this "slip".
UPDATE II (3/20/08): Also apparently CNN has been re-christened "McCNN". One of their reporters, Kyra Phillips, shamlessly repeats McBush's "gaffe" and tries to get Petraeus to comment on it:
(from TPM)
(video from ABC news via Raw Story)
"it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran"
Common knowledge? That Sunni Al Qaeda is going into Shiite Iran and receiving training?
Gee who knew those Iranian Mullah's were so tolerant?
And leave it to good ol' GOP BFF Joe Lieberman to have to straighten out ol "straight talk"
One final thought: This is the man Hillary thinks has passed the CIC "threshold" and, along with her, has the experience to be president?
UPDATE (3/20/08): Apparently this wasn't simply a one time slip but McSkippy has repeated this both before and since this "slip".
UPDATE II (3/20/08): Also apparently CNN has been re-christened "McCNN". One of their reporters, Kyra Phillips, shamlessly repeats McBush's "gaffe" and tries to get Petraeus to comment on it:
(from TPM)
HISTORY IN ACTION
A few thoughts on Obama's speech today.
Definitely rivals Kennedy's speech to the southern ministers re his Catholicism and church v state. Doubtless, we'll someday be teaching Obama's speeches in history classes.
I especially liked how he didn't trivialize or talk down to the resentment both blacks and whites feel from their respective corners.
The two things that really emotionally hit me every time I hear one of his speeches are: 1) he makes me proud -really proud- to me an American and 2) He makes me want to strive to personally be better and contribute to that "more perfect union" he cited in this speech.
I'm seeing the chatter among his supporters change from "we need him in office" to "we'd better not miss this chance to have someone like him". Subtle shift, but important IMO.
I suffer "indigestion" on a regular basis about whether as a nation we'll actually seize this opportunity, attempt to heal as a nation, and move forward, or whether we'll capitulate to the SOS and continue toward what will, in that case, be a well deserved destruction (or at least diminution).
I'm confident that an Obama presidency would sharply alter the trajectory of our nation toward a better future. I just wish I could be as confident that an Obama presidency will in fact happen.
Definitely rivals Kennedy's speech to the southern ministers re his Catholicism and church v state. Doubtless, we'll someday be teaching Obama's speeches in history classes.
I especially liked how he didn't trivialize or talk down to the resentment both blacks and whites feel from their respective corners.
The two things that really emotionally hit me every time I hear one of his speeches are: 1) he makes me proud -really proud- to me an American and 2) He makes me want to strive to personally be better and contribute to that "more perfect union" he cited in this speech.
I'm seeing the chatter among his supporters change from "we need him in office" to "we'd better not miss this chance to have someone like him". Subtle shift, but important IMO.
I suffer "indigestion" on a regular basis about whether as a nation we'll actually seize this opportunity, attempt to heal as a nation, and move forward, or whether we'll capitulate to the SOS and continue toward what will, in that case, be a well deserved destruction (or at least diminution).
I'm confident that an Obama presidency would sharply alter the trajectory of our nation toward a better future. I just wish I could be as confident that an Obama presidency will in fact happen.
Friday, March 07, 2008
MORE
Oh, and by the way -refer back to this post and tell me if I'm wrong:
She says that Obama is basing his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a speech he gave in 2002?
NO HE ISN'T. That's just unmitigated mendacity.
It's one thing to claim that you have experience -but you'd better be able to back that up, and you'd better be able to show that that experience MEANS something.
Obama needs to keep showing 1. that her claims of experience are silly, and 2. that no matter how much experience she's had it hasn't seemed to affect her judgment.
She says that Obama is basing his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a speech he gave in 2002?
NO HE ISN'T. That's just unmitigated mendacity.
It's one thing to claim that you have experience -but you'd better be able to back that up, and you'd better be able to show that that experience MEANS something.
Obama needs to keep showing 1. that her claims of experience are silly, and 2. that no matter how much experience she's had it hasn't seemed to affect her judgment.
WHOSE SIDE IS SHE ON?
UPDATE: so it appears that the total delegates from not-so-super-Tuesday that Hillary has picked up is 8. That hardly makes any difference and Obama is likely to cancel that out as CA certifies the votes that had the "double bubble" trouble, or in this weekend's primaries in Wyoming and Mississippi.
Meanwhile, Hillary keeps praising McCain and slamming Obama, creating more for McCain to use against the eventual nominee with every utterance:
There's worse and the piece below chrystalizes it. This is one of the most powerful pieces of advertising I've ever seen:
Too bad it'll never see the light of day on the MSM.
As Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC Tuesday night: "this is the kind of thing you say when you're hoping to be picked as John McCain's running mate".
Meanwhile, Hillary keeps praising McCain and slamming Obama, creating more for McCain to use against the eventual nominee with every utterance:
There's worse and the piece below chrystalizes it. This is one of the most powerful pieces of advertising I've ever seen:
Too bad it'll never see the light of day on the MSM.
As Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC Tuesday night: "this is the kind of thing you say when you're hoping to be picked as John McCain's running mate".
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
OY
Ok, so it's the morning after the Super Tuesday II hoohah. And the Oscar goes to...Hillary Clinton for "The Big Comback" MSNBC, CNN and Mark Penn producers.
To hear her tell it she's kicked Obama's ass and is "going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York … And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!!!"
Reality check folks -know how many delegates she picked up after last night?
...Drum roll please...
ONE. That's right -as of now- one. The delegate totals? 185 Clinton, 184 Obama.
To be fair she might pick up a couple more as the vote totals come in but regardless it's by no means a blowout, and without blowouts of the remaining states she can't possibly make up the gap she has now.
I think it's time for the gloves to come off. Ok, Ok, calm down -I don't mean that Obama should resort to the lowlife cheap shots she's leveled at him. But he definitely should start taking it to her with regard to her claims of "experience". First as to the amount of experience she claims she has (she says 35 years -that would mean every year since undergrad since she's 60) and then as to what she's labeling experience (First Lady? Governor's Wife? Rose Law Firm?) . Finally, he should hammer home the judgement her "experience" has produced as he's already been doing.
A comment at TPM calls her Iraq war vote into even greater question and totally kills the "I didn't know Bush was going to take the AUMF and actually attack Iraq" bullshit argument she's made.
She's even now saying that she'd entertain a Clinton/Obama ticket -with her at the top of course. How magnanimous "well I can't beat you, so how would you like to work for me?" This of course is after she claimed Obama is less ready to lead than McCain. If that's the case why would she want Obama as her second in command?
The only way I see a joint ticket happening is if she pulls waaaaaay closer in the delegate count and cuts the crap. Why should Obama agree as long as he wins in the delegate count? Plus she's not going to back off the BS any time soon because with this new burst of not entirely justified energy Mark Penn is going to take credit for the "victory" and claim it was a result of the negative press he created against Obama. She'll never drop Penn now, and he's the douchebag responsible for all the cheap shot attacks.
BTW they're now blacking Obama up in their ads -darkening his skin and widening the video to make his nose appear broader just like Time did to OJ.
This isn't going to get any better. And if Obama keeps going strong she's only going to hit harder and lower and in the process sever any possibility of a joint ticket.
Finally as I said at TPM:
I think back to a Thom Hartmann show from a few weeks ago live from the CPAC convention. He (or a guest I forget which) said that the booths there all had anti-Hillary bumper-stickers, t-shirts, buttons, posters etc. for sale whereas there was shockingly no anti-obama paraphenalia.
None. At all.
They can't wait to get their hands on her, and don't forget that the fact that they've done it all before also means that they've practiced it all before -i.e. the "research" is already done, formatted, packaged and awaiting distribution.
I don't agree that the longer this goes on the more the Dems can get their message out and keep McCain off the front pages. McCain's a known quantity and becoming moreso every time he embraces Bush or his policies. The American People know what they'll get with McCain, and frankly every time he speaks he just looks old and tired -that message is stark and clear. They think they know what they'll get with Hillary (though they don't), but the problem is they have yet to grasp what they'll get with Obama -and all the prolonged nomination process will do is give the wingnuts time to gear up against him, because he'll have to spend all his time fighting attacks from someone in his own party rather than putting his best foot forward.
Don't get me wrong -if by some miracle she gets the nomination I'll dutifully vote for her in the general, but she's making it increasingly more difficult for me to do so enthusiastically.
It's going to be a long seven weeks. *sigh*
To hear her tell it she's kicked Obama's ass and is "going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York … And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!!!"
Reality check folks -know how many delegates she picked up after last night?
...Drum roll please...
ONE. That's right -as of now- one. The delegate totals? 185 Clinton, 184 Obama.
To be fair she might pick up a couple more as the vote totals come in but regardless it's by no means a blowout, and without blowouts of the remaining states she can't possibly make up the gap she has now.
I think it's time for the gloves to come off. Ok, Ok, calm down -I don't mean that Obama should resort to the lowlife cheap shots she's leveled at him. But he definitely should start taking it to her with regard to her claims of "experience". First as to the amount of experience she claims she has (she says 35 years -that would mean every year since undergrad since she's 60) and then as to what she's labeling experience (First Lady? Governor's Wife? Rose Law Firm?) . Finally, he should hammer home the judgement her "experience" has produced as he's already been doing.
A comment at TPM calls her Iraq war vote into even greater question and totally kills the "I didn't know Bush was going to take the AUMF and actually attack Iraq" bullshit argument she's made.
She's even now saying that she'd entertain a Clinton/Obama ticket -with her at the top of course. How magnanimous "well I can't beat you, so how would you like to work for me?" This of course is after she claimed Obama is less ready to lead than McCain. If that's the case why would she want Obama as her second in command?
The only way I see a joint ticket happening is if she pulls waaaaaay closer in the delegate count and cuts the crap. Why should Obama agree as long as he wins in the delegate count? Plus she's not going to back off the BS any time soon because with this new burst of not entirely justified energy Mark Penn is going to take credit for the "victory" and claim it was a result of the negative press he created against Obama. She'll never drop Penn now, and he's the douchebag responsible for all the cheap shot attacks.
BTW they're now blacking Obama up in their ads -darkening his skin and widening the video to make his nose appear broader just like Time did to OJ.
This isn't going to get any better. And if Obama keeps going strong she's only going to hit harder and lower and in the process sever any possibility of a joint ticket.
Finally as I said at TPM:
I think back to a Thom Hartmann show from a few weeks ago live from the CPAC convention. He (or a guest I forget which) said that the booths there all had anti-Hillary bumper-stickers, t-shirts, buttons, posters etc. for sale whereas there was shockingly no anti-obama paraphenalia.
None. At all.
They can't wait to get their hands on her, and don't forget that the fact that they've done it all before also means that they've practiced it all before -i.e. the "research" is already done, formatted, packaged and awaiting distribution.
I don't agree that the longer this goes on the more the Dems can get their message out and keep McCain off the front pages. McCain's a known quantity and becoming moreso every time he embraces Bush or his policies. The American People know what they'll get with McCain, and frankly every time he speaks he just looks old and tired -that message is stark and clear. They think they know what they'll get with Hillary (though they don't), but the problem is they have yet to grasp what they'll get with Obama -and all the prolonged nomination process will do is give the wingnuts time to gear up against him, because he'll have to spend all his time fighting attacks from someone in his own party rather than putting his best foot forward.
Don't get me wrong -if by some miracle she gets the nomination I'll dutifully vote for her in the general, but she's making it increasingly more difficult for me to do so enthusiastically.
It's going to be a long seven weeks. *sigh*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
