-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2007/12/chris-matthews-wants-to-sponsor-obama-for-just-25-cents-a-day/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Since he doesn't, guess this is what we're stuck with.
you keep harping on *O* lacking substance...yet you think McCain has substance?
...for what? for being a war-hero? For leading campaign-finance reforms (which he's not following himself right now), or continuing to support the Iraq War--that's substance? Hmmm...., I think not.
Sure, Chris Matthews can't talk about black folks with embarrasing himself, but it seems that Hillary Clinton can't talk about Obama w/o embarrassing herself.
CAN YOU ALL BELIEVE that her campaign has criticized *O* for something that he said in KINDERGARTEN???
Where's the late-night talk shows when you need them??? That story should be bouncing all over the MSM echo chamber!
HRC better be thanking the Almighty G that there's a writer's strike right now.
I Love J&J-Politics--How; do I apply to be a contributor?
They can't help themselves. I mean, honestly and truly, they simply can't help themselves,and you just have to shake your head sometimes and go, 'Damn, that was stupid'.
I said from the beginning that Obama would be a Racial Rorshach Test for America. Folks can't handle it, dnA. Cracks me up, but it is what it is.
I will have to agree with the above poster...KINDERGARTEN? Opposition Research is now in KINDERGARTEN?
WTF?
You talk about everyone else not being able to get over the fact that Obama is black, but it looks to me like YOU can't get over Obama being black.
Found a better one than that on Andrew Sullivan's Blog from today:
Quote taken from Andrew Sullivan's Blog:
When Clintons attack, it's time to take notes. David Corn has some Clinton favor here:
"They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."
He's UPPITY.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA
Now, remember Salon.com used UPPITY on Obama months ago.
See, they can't help themselves.
My knock on Obama is this: he does not yet have the experience to be president. I have a real problem with someone who-for all purposes-started campaigning for president almost IMMEDIATELY after (maybe before?) being elected to the Senate. We've been talking about Obama since, what, 2003-2004, if not before? I can't see what he's done since that time that says "presidential" to me. Hell, it seems like he's learned to throw out the race card faster than he's learned how to lead.
If this were 2012, 2016-then MAYBE (I am kinda right wing) I'd be down for his cause. He has said some things that have caused me to think. But, for 2008, he's not it.
At least McCain has had the opportunity to look at situations, make a decision, and then (for the most part!!) stick to that decision. And I would rather have a president someone who's already learned how to make a hard call then someone who has to figure it out on the job.
Uppity is usually followed by Nigger, whether expressly spoken or not...I have no doubt that's what they are thinking.
Rikyrah,
Uppity is usually followed by Nigger, whether expressly spoken or not...I have no doubt that's what they are thinking
NMP,
And you know it, girl.
And you know it.
Doesn't fool me either. At all. We know what they mean....
I'm a hostile dude, but your input is appreciated, even if it doesn't seem like it. Don't take it personally when I bark, because it's just how I am.
I'm not buying the experience argument in this case, because all the people with experience were wrong when it mattered because they were relying on their own experience, what they thought they knew, rather than evidence.
In other words, experience doesn't mean jack if you don't read the NIE. Which NO ONE running for president did who had access to it did.
It's a matter of judgment. Do you really disagree with Obama's statement that he would go into Pakistan with or without Musharraf's permission if he knew exactly where bin Laden was? Do you simoltaneously think it's a bad idea to communicate with the now obviously non-nuclear Iran? Do you oppose a non-military solution to the conflict in Darfur? You against a solution to the health care coverage that doesn't expand medicare to include everyone in the country? Opposed to same-sex marriage?
Because after reading some of the things you've said, I don't really think you're as far away from Obama as you think politically, you seem to just have an issue with him personally.
yeah the man has been in national office for only one term. That gives him about the same amount of experience as Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, and just in case you forgot, the guy in front for the GOP nomination right now was a fucking MAYOR. NYC or not, that is a joke. And while Hillary was an active first lady, that's not the same thing as holding elected office.
But you know, it sounds really silly to suggest a bald white guy doesn't have experience. Suggesting the black dude is too green to be prez? not quite as hard.
The candidate with the most impressive resume in this race is Bill Richardson. Are you supporting him based on his experience?
While they are both politicians, I find Obama to be more genuine. Maybe with more experience with him, the nation will regard him differently, but we already know that Hillary is a calculating personality, measuring her decisions by what is in her political best interest. Case in point, her opposition to retroactively applying reductions in crack vs. powder sentencing. I don't believe her that she is concerned about the potential negative impact of releasing these people from jail (there is is a legit debate to be had on that score). I think the reason she opposes it is because she is positioning herself politically for a general election fight where she cannot be assailed as soft on crime. To accomplish that, she is perfectly willing to throw blacks under the bus by opposing reduction of unfairly long sentences on people who never should have been sent to jail on such long sentences in the first place.
Its a clear issue when she won't give a straight answer as to whether or not she favors licenses for illegal immigrants. She wants to play both sides and she will tell an audience what she thinks they want to hear. I find Obama to be more genuine. I believe he will do what he says more than I believe her when she says it.
-Aaron
Did you see this?
Post Obama story under fire
You weren't alone, dnA in seeing how FOUL it was.
Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearing:
"These hearings are nothing more than a HIGH-TECH Lynching for UPPITY Blacks!!!"
Oh__, y'all making me feel really GOOD today!
The moment you start slinging around that "UPPITY" word with a black man in contention for a spot on the supreme court or...THE PRESIDENCY...
...It usually means that black man is going to either get confirmed or...ELECTED.
Mr. Webber *speaks in tongues, rolls around on the floor.*
Let the word "uppity" reverberate from every moutain top, on and on! LoL.
I'm still trying to understand why everyone is so surprised at the CLinton operative's usage/diction.
If you're the Clintons and a majority of black folks had been shuckin and jivin, hollering, "That Bill is our 1st 'Black' President!" for nearly two decades now, you'd be upset too.
You'd be stunned if ONE-BROTHA stood up and said "ENUFF is Enuff." This degenerative cycle of dog-eat-dog, clinton-bush-clinton must end!
If that makes *O* uppity, then that must make me sum bourgeiosie-talented10th-black trash.
yo d (i ain't 4got u):
Seriously tho, what does *O* have to do for you? You want him to walk on water?
You seem to be an independent thinker. Do you think that the next president should be an independent thinker too? Or do you want a DEPENDENT thinker in the White House?
You want another BUSH who DEPENDS on a Cheney/Rumsfeld for counsel?
You want a Hillary who already says she's going to DEPEND on a Bill to help govern/game the system?
Barack Obama is an independent thinker.
The game is called, "Follow the Leader." If you follow a dumb leader ala a Jim Jones or George Bush, that makes you dumb too. Hillary and McCain followed George into Iraq (and dayum near Iran too).
So for McCain, my logic is pretty simple: if you continuously support a dumb war, don't be surprised when people start calling you dumb too.
McCain embraced the war and it's gonna cost him the nomination (among righteous republicans)...Didn't he already say, "I'd rather lose an election and win the war." ...So, more power to you (and him)...No love lost tho.
Do you really disagree with Obama's statement that he would go into Pakistan with or without Musharraf's permission if he knew exactly where bin Laden was? If it came down to that, yes. I’m not sure he could make the back door deals that would need to be made in order to pull that off without making it look like we’re invading Pakistan, though.
Do you simoltaneously think it's a bad idea to communicate with the now obviously non-nuclear Iran? Yes. And just because it seems like they’re not pursuing nukes now, that doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. The last thing in the world we need is nuclear-armed islamofacists.
Do you oppose a non-military solution to the conflict in Darfur? I oppose any intervention in ANY situation that is (and this may not be the right word) irrelevant to our national interests and security. I’m not exactly sure how Darfur fits into our national picture, except for pissing off people who think we should intervene as peacekeepers-who, oddly enough, seem to be a lot of the same people who don’t want us to be “the world’s policeman.” Kinda contradictory, in my book.
You against a solution to the health care coverage that doesn't expand medicare to include everyone in the country? I am against any sort of government-run health care, because there’s no way to fund it. At least without pulling from DoD’s budget…and we all saw the end results of letting THAT budget slip.
Opposed to same-sex marriage? Yeah, we agree on that one.
And for Webb: I don’t doubt his sincerity. I do believe he’s an independent thinker. My knock on him is that he doesn’t understand the inner workings of Washington, cause he hasn’t been here long enough. If he signs on as Hillary’s VP, he’s unbeatable (‘less he does something stupid) when she’s done. Hell, he could probably challenge HER when she went up for reelection and win.
You’re right, it will probably cost McCain the nomination. I’m just adamantly opposed to ANYONE-Republican or otherwise-that would pull us out of Iraq and not realize the long term consequences of that action-cause I know what some of those consequences are. If that makes me “dumb,” so be it.
And all you had to do to do it, was argue with substance, instead of talking about how he has no substance.
If he wins it proves I am behind the times Short of that he is a straw man in this game. Sorry that is how I see it!!
I'm thankful that we have some bright folks who are very highly attuned to media coverage. I would have never caught that "Third World" comment.
I'm sure 99% of the electorate would have missed it.
So Chris Matthews was really trying to say...
"He's so fresh-faced, so brand-new, almost 'Ghetto' in his sort of presentation."
C.M. must be a hip-hop head who thinks coming from the ghetto is cool.
...I'm not trying to be a C.M. defender, but his piece was very complimentary toward *O* which is what concerned me the most.
C.M. probably meant to say "Unworldly" but he did the best he could...being that he's a Boston drunk.