-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/friday-open-thread-tgifwhew/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I'm watching this on CNN, but it seems as if the Pope met with some sexual abuse victims of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that this is going to change what happened overnight, but speaking up about the abuse, meeting the victims, has to be a positive step for the church.
Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad by Amb. John Bolton
War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Doug Feith
The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk
Just thought I'd share....
The whole point of the Clinton/GOP attacks on Obama is to promote fear by playing on people's racially-based apprehensions and prejudices. They are trying to slap on to Obama the images of the angry black man, the black man in the back alley, the black thug.
Osama=Obama "slip-ups"
The insidious email campaign that Obama was educated at a madrassa and so was a secret terrorist.
Obama's pastor as anti-American, shouting, angry, violent.
William Ayers question: Weather Underground bombers.
Bob Johnson suggesting that Obama was a thug in "the hood"
This approach is cynical, degrading, and anti-democratic (whether it is anti-American or not i will leave to others). It is meant to shut down discussion of real issues, to end democratic conversation: the political discourse that is supposed to mark a constitutional democracy like our own.
I saw the Fisk book in the library last week and was intrigued by it. Will pick it up next time.
I'm watching this on CNN, but it seems as if the Pope met with some sexual abuse victims of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that this is going to change what happened overnight, but speaking up about the abuse, meeting the victims, has to be a positive step for the church."
Yes, that is a step in the right direction. My priest often speaks about it also...many do. I am happy that someone at the top has said it and issued an apology. They also need to reform priesthood in my opinion
Of course and when he doesnt fall for the bait, he is a "wimp". Its almost a no win situation.
Today on the news, they are calling him a "wimp", that he is "whining" and our friend Don Imus called him a "pussy" pretty much.
They go from one extreme to the next...unfortunate.
If they aren't registered (or haven't updated their registration), they can go register and vote during this early voting period.
::
Ending the oppression of the dogma of celibacy would be a great start.
It'll probably take a month to read....LOL
I'm interested to see if it's just his reflections, or if he slants events to fit an agenda.
Also, linked throught the Obama webpage and on Colbert's site, you will find a donation page to help school teachers and students in Pennsylvania.
http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/leadershipboard.html?category=25
You can give in honor of your candidate. So far,
Obama has $155,601
Clinton has $29,151
Just in case you wanted to drop a little somethin' somethin'
Both from the south. Both centrists. Both national security/intelligence experts
From Talking Points Memo
The whole point of the Clinton/GOP attacks on Obama is to promote fear by playing on people's racially-based apprehensions and prejudices. They are trying to slap on to Obama the images of the angry black man, the black man in the back alley, the black thug.
Osama=Obama "slip-ups"
The insidious email campaign that Obama was educated at a madrassa and so was a secret terrorist.
Joe, you are so right on this. They're just waiting for one time..just one time..to brand him as the Angry Black Man...that will all they need...it'll be an endless loop to end all endless loops.
But, Obama understands this, and he hasn't bitten.
If he didn't bite at that lynching over at ABC, he's never going to bite.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html
Nunn could be a potential VP, putting GA in play.
but it would seem to me that he needs a white moderate pol to carry the water on this
I'm in the Midwest too and I felt it.
Check the main page of the Faux News website. Reeeally reaching. If you're arriving late to my comment and missed what I'm referring to, I'm talking about the whole "did or didn't he give Hillary the bird?"
Yup, yup. They are saying that Obama gave Hillary the middle finger at his speech in Raleigh where he dusted his shoulders off!!
All of those Hillary supporters and the conservative media are trying to make some issue out of it.
Tryin to make him into an angry black man who swears, puts up his middle finger at white folks and listens to "rap music". I love it!!
Listen Barack has "99 Problems but the Bitch aint one"
He dusted her off moving on!!
Moving on....
read about it at The Field last night.
I am glad the Pope apologized and I'm sure some of the Catholics really needed to hear it.
I would like to know if anyone has seen the similarties between the Pope's message and Obama's as it relates to humanity and hope? The Pope's messages echoed the core of Obama's message regarding immigrants and the the fact that people have more in common than things that separate them.
I couldn't believe Lou Dobb's in all his self-righteousness and defense of his bigotry towards illegal immigrants actually asked if the Americans wanted the Pope involved in political matters regarding America. I didn't see the results of that poll. I can't believe he even asked.
I guess the Pope sounded too much like Obama to him.
He usually is.
Other than that, go to a bookstore and buy James McBride's Song Yet Sung and Mat Johnson's Incognegro (and then my new books come summer and next winter) put down that damn Zane and C-Murder and Terri Woods ghetto crap!!!
What are the other dynamics?
What are the other dynamics?
I am not Mr. Chambers, but, from where I sit, it goes in concert with what I posted just yesterday.
Obama is a threat to the status quo. He threatens to upend 'The System' in such a way that the corporate-owned media must try and stop him.
Why else a million stories on Bittergate,
and only Olbermann bringing up that basically, The President, VP, Secretary of State and Defense were in meetings, in the WHITE HOUSE, discussing which TORTURE METHODS TO USE?
We have War Profiteers robbing our Treasury blind, but no sustained stories on that...are we supposed to think that NBC, MSNBC, CNBC would cover that considering that their parent company, GE - IS one of those War Profiteers?
I said before, race is the easy way to hide behind these attacks, because it goes way deeper than that. Race is one of those muddling factors they can throw out and BS, when the truth is far more harsh, and if it clicked with the average American...well, things would change.
I felt that earthquake in Toronto.
Must see!!!!!!
How *DANGER*Hillary Can Still Win!!!
VOTE for Obama. He's moved up from #35 to #6!!! We can help get him to #1. Move the slider to 100 and submit.
TIME 2008 Most Influential OBAMA
VOTE for Rev Wright at TIME most influential people
TIME 2008 Most Influential REV WRIGHT
Amazing article on Huffington Post!..MUST READ
Choosing a Leader
Breaking News! Obama loves Hitler!!
Six degrees of Separation
..also, Obama got some great endorsements today! Whoo hoo!
If any of you heard any questions about Carter's talks in the debate, please let me know.
There haven't been any broadcast headlines of the Hamas endorsement that I've seen. Perhaps this is McCain's way of trying to get it there.
Whatever the case, the gloves are off.
There's a petition to sign with 200,000 signatures received in just 24 hours.
They are going to create an ad to ask the media to focus on real issues and not trivial distractions.
http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?rc=homepage
http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?rc=homepage
Hillary Can Still Win is hillarious!
I'm surprised that the Hamas endorsement hasn't been news myself. If anything, it defintely would make some people think about whether or not they want to elect someone who's been endorsed by a known terrorist organization.
What's DKos saying McCain's lying about? The endorsement actually did take place......
..I think Dobbs mentioned something about Hamas in connection with Obama on his show yesterday. He had a segment with a jerk flogging his book...this guy was really down on Obama here's the clip:
Lou sliming Obama
1) That Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas came up in the debate and Obama refused to condemn him.
2) The lie of omission that Barack Obama has denounced Carter for meeting with Hamas and has stated unequivocally that he will NOT meet with Hamas himself.
but, what this meeting does do is open the door to under-the-table discussions with Hamas later on.
Obama's been endorsed by highly respected Americans, are they suggesting Hamas has more credible weight than Americans??
That's a stupid line of attack.
TV news is expensive to produce, and analysis, real talk etc is boring to the average moron. Opinion, shouting, slime is entrallng so that is their business model. Is it a chicken or the egg thing? At this point it's hard to say what drives what.
If black folks would stop buying ghetto and video vixen books would publishers stop printing them? Yes. If publishers stopped doing that first, what would happen? Well as long as fools couldn't get them bootleg, who knows? Perhaps folks would indeed get the message and start goin for more intelligent fare.
Found nothing in the transcript about #1, so okay....guess that's not exactly accurate.
On #2....if Obama has denounced Carter and said he won't meet with Hamas, then what's the big deal?
Truth,
if bin Laden or al-Zaharwi endorsed Obama, it wouldn't matter what American did. This is the same thing to a large segment of the population. Let's not forget that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization.
But this shows he's not as committed as he says he is.
I thought Chambers was speaking of a dynamic I might be unware of.
Truth,
if bin Laden or al-Zaharwi endorsed Obama, it wouldn't matter what American did. This is the same thing to a large segment of the population. Let's not forget that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization.
That argument stands up only from the standpoint of irrationality. Since Hamas is a terrorist organization, if they wanted to oppose an anti terrorist US party, they would simply put out a statement endorsing them. If your logic is to be accepted, this would be the kiss of death.
It is irrational for Americans to accept the validity of an endorsement from a terrorist organization. It is also irrational for Democrats to accept the advise of Republicans. Barack wishes to restore rationality.
One of the reasons Obama gives so many people hope is that he has said he will sit down with our enemies. And since usually the reason someone is our enemy is because they won't hand over their resources (ie Palestinians it's land, Iran it's oil, Iraq it was oil etc) or they become a threat because they pose competition to those resources (ie Russia) it makes sense.
Don't forget, Iraq was one of the three "axis of evil" and as it turns out (and as I knew and most people I know knew) they were no threat to us but they had lots of untapped oil.
Anyways, I have to get back to work.
Just one more thing, for every Isreali killed, 30-40 Palestinians are killed...
I think Dobbs piled on when in a speech, Obama named him as one of a group of people who are demagoging immigration. Dobbs mentioned it on his show, angrily of course, and ever since then has been especially hard on Obama.
I think he's a right-wing populist, not much different from Pat Buchanan.
It may seem irrational to you, but many Americans will just see the headline, and it will look bad. Our attention span is too short to go into the details.
...and since Hamas is the elected government of Palestine, that would then put them in the "state sponsor of terrorism" category, IMO. In which case, why should Obama-or any president-want to do anything with them except sending them a few tons on bombs?
The US has a stated policy that's worked for as long as I've been alive: we don't negotiate with terrorists.
I agree, I saw the show where Dobbs responded. He even polled his viewers doing the show.
I think something like 57% didn't agree with Dobbs - he's been on a rant every sense.
The cable news outlets are discussing us today. They are singing in unison with Hillary. They say we're whining about the debate.
Rachel Maddow was the only pundit who attributed the outrage to the format and lack of substanitive questions.
We're the "Obama Nation".
I saw that, they dont get it. We are not whining, we are upset about the format of the debate. I want Obama to get hard questions always and he will but they like saying that we are whiners and cultists etc..
They can continue to insult us and our intelligence.
When she comes back to New York to run for Senator, I will not vote for her or support her. I want a contender for Hillary.
I thought you guys would like the fact that a lot of Hillary's neighbors are...OBAMA supporters. I am not lying. In our county (Hillary;s county)Hillary only beat Obama 55 to 45!! haha...and she lost CT which is a stone throw away so she better not get us upset cause we will not vote for her...she will not get back her seat. she will be unempolyed like all those CBC people who support her.
Hillary caught on tape after Super Tuesday slamming Move on. Org!
Well I'll be....
http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/18/clinton-blames-partys-activist-base-for-defeats-at-post-super-tuesday-fundraiser/
Justice58 the story is at Huffpo and Dailykos. I'm wondering if this will do anything. I'm sure she will brush it off. Well, actually they did.
Doesn't matter that MoveOn started to help save her husband's ass. She's trying to complete the painting of Obama as a radical.
She pandered to the group in public last year but "behind closed doors" she's mad it didn't endorse her. And they are to blame for her losing all the caucuses.
This is Mrs. Nixon at her ruthless best. I have no doubt in my mind that she leaked this herself. Which is why Wolfson isn't even upset.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If so--Hillary is the ultimate....
He puts Hillary's CBC surrogates to shame.
It's a sad day when Regan's son has to point out what happened with those debates and the fact that Obama wasn't whining, that he was pointing out the fact that the questions had nothing to do with the issues facing Americans.
Abrams just called Lou Dobbs "Chatty Cathy".
And I wasn't the only one who noticed that he wants to challenge the Pope.
April 16, 2008
Former Newark, N.J. mayor, mistress convicted in federal court
Sharpe James, one of the last big city powerbrokers who ran Newark, N.J. for 20 years, was convicted today of fraud, along with his mistress.
According to the New York Times, they were convicted of "conspiring to sell city-owned properties to a former girlfriend, who quickly flipped them and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits."
The paper says "the jury found Mr. James, 72, guilty on all five counts he faced. His former girlfriend, Tamika Riley, 39, was convicted on the same fraud and conspiracy charges as well as eight others for numerous tax violations in connection with what the authorities said was her failure to file income tax returns for her public relations firm."
James ran Newark prior to the election of Mayor Cory Booker.
The two face up to eight years in prison and will be sentenced on July 29.
Richard Cohen of the WaPo has serious ' issues' with Obama
Now this won't have the media coverage of bitter-gate, but the Superdelagates are paying attention. You don't want to piss off activist groups--particularly one founded because of your husband's impeachmnt. They're the backbone of the demorcatic party
Hillary Clinton dissed party activists and MoveOn.org
Apparently Hillary Clinton hasn't always been enamored with the rambunctious nature of the historic fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. Speaking to financial backers after Super Tuesday, she blamed the party's activists and MoveOn.org for her early primary and caucus defeats, according to an item over at The Huffington Post.
"MoveOn.org endorsed [Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," the item quotes Clinton as saying (there's audio on the site).
Her campaign, she continues, had been less successful in caucuses because those gatherings bring out "the activist base of the Democratic Party... [T]hey are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
Eli Pariser, MoveOn's executive director, defended the base: "Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator [John] McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."
So much for party unity in the dash for the White House.
It was exactly ago a week ago ...
that another Huffington Post item unearthed a candid comment -- Barack Obama's now-infamous sociological assessment of the mores of small-town America -- the the reaction roiled the Democratic presidnetial race.
Clinton's comment won't kick up as much a fuss as Obama's, but she did poke a stick at a group that can be counted on to respond in kind.
Indeed, Pariser took particular umbrage to Clinton, in the comments to her donors, saying, "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with."
Pariser said: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim."
And you can be sure that many of its members will seethe over the Afghanistan matter.
The fact that Obama made his small-town comment in San Francisco helped give it particular reasonance. The new post concerning Clinton does not identify where she uttered her words; Huffington Post editors tell us that information was withheld to protect the source who provided the audio to "citizen-journalist" Celeste Fremon.
The event, we've been told, "was a small affair held between Super Tuesday and the Ohio/Texas primaries in a major American city."
There's irony in Clinton trashing MoveOn -- the group was formed, and its name conceived, in an effort to persuade the country that too much time and energy was being devoted to impeach and drive Bill Clinton from office because of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
-- Scott Martelle/Don Frederick
Here we go:
(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."
The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.
"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”
The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."
“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."
Let's interject a bit of reality so that the reality based side can see for themselves just what some of them are foisting on us. Here is the McCain interview in question, my excerpt:
MR. COOK: I'm going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?
SEN. MCCAIN: Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they're going to be able to keep their home or not. They're figuring out whether they're - why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There's no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties.
I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.
But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America's economy are strong. We're the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They haven't lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still - keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.
For Obama to extract one sentence and argue that McCain is out of touch is shameless.
Has anyone seen the spoof of McCain debating himself?
It shows how he says this now and that later!
I wrote about it on my blog:
http://reachblack.blogspot.com/
@craig,
This is definite sister souljah material. But I'm not sure she'd leak something like this so early. You gotta make it to the general before you pull a stunt like this. She's gotta catch Obama first, and stuff like this ain't gonna help.
Let's see. . . If I were running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination I think I'd want to:
1. Piss off black folk (check);
2. Dismiss the youth vote (check);
3. Piss off Progressives (check);
4. Threaten the DNC Chair (check)
5. Threaten the Democratic Speaker of the House (check)
Yup. She'd be well on her way! Well, if she were running for the REPUBLICAN nomination.
But don't worry. Hillary's got the Reagan Democrats in her camp. Too bad she won't have the Democratic BASE to go with it.
Wow! Now, just add in her negatives over 50% as well as the fact that most Democratic voters don't think she's trustworthy and I can see how she thinks she's the strongest candidate ;)
Not smart. And she's got the nerve to attack Obama's electability?!?!?
There's a reporter (don't know his name) that's saying a lot of unlikely people are really voting for Obama in Pennsylvania.
He said that there's a Bigots for Obama group (don't know if he was joking) because of the condition of the economy and some of them believe he's different that typical Washington.
I just saw Bill Maher too. I really don't know what to think of what that reporter said. The polls seem to be all over the map. One pollster (PPP) actually shows Obama 2 pts ahead of Clinton in PA and that same pollster was supposedly right on the mark in calling S. Carolina?????
I hope they're right. That would mean people finally get it.
They finally understand who Obama is and Hillary Clinton is not.
Go Obama!
My 82 Year Old Mother's Debate Reaction
How Obama is thinking ahead, and I agree with the writer's assessment, though from a different angle. I've told y'all - he can't be seen as that Big Black Brute beating up on that 'Poor Defenseless White Woman'.
Only commentator to break it down like that was a Black REPUBLICAN Female - Michelle Bernard, and that Joan Whatshername from ' We called Obama UPPITY' Salon.com, poo-pooed it. But, Bernard was on the money.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5joZ3qLp6q573frLjOGU3W8koFk0wD904LCA01
In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”
Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”
The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism.
The signers include at least seven contributors to The Nation, whose editors never saw anything "tangential" about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service and what that said about his character. A Google search of The Nation's website for stories on that topic yields 72 stories — none of which called on the media to stop focusing on such a tangential character issue.
ABC's critics also continue to insist that the American people don't care about issues like Obama's association with William Ayers or Clinton's lying about her trip to Bosnia, but they undermine their own argument by getting furious with anyone who mentions these topics. They're furious because they know that Americans do care about their president's character, and they know that these stories — if they get too much attention — will hurt their candidate in the fall.
I'm with you...to a point.
The type of vetting that should've gone on with Obama (which one could argue is happening now) should've taken place last year.
Obama's gotten a free ride to this point, and it looks like it just ended.
However, to spend an hour trashing Obama on national TV...not cool. If for no other reason than it looks like a conservative hit job, which gets us the "racist!!" flag.
that "vetting" nonesense is ignorant crap. It's part of the old politics that's passing away, thankfully.
(current season fastest upload)
youtube.com/user/videocafeblog
(current season)
youtube.com/user/MoKEELoK
(previous seasons)
youtube.com/user/REALTIMEwBMs123
I don't get arrogance from Obama. As a matter of fact, sometimes I see fleeting hint of insecurity
::
There's both. He's a Leo afterall.
Here's a segment of Friday's Real Time where the reporter talking to rural Pensylvanians:
youtube.com/watch?v=0uO_KITFHmY
@craig,
This is definite sister souljah material. But I'm not sure she'd leak something like this so early. You gotta make it to the general before you pull a stunt like this. She's gotta catch Obama first, and stuff like this ain't gonna help.
She can't get to the general election. She knows it. What she's trying to do is destroy Obama. This is part of the painting of him as radical.
Check This Out:
How the GOP Will Link Obama and Ayers
The polls in PA must not look good for Mrs. Clinton.
A sistah souljah moment followed up by a Willie Horton moment which resurrects McCarthyism in the process, and the Nixons are in fullout destroy mode.
Obama's base are Black people and youth. And this Nixonian operative is spreading this mess to heads of unions all over PA.
His opponents are scared. Really, really scared.
Perhaps they're hoping someone with a sawed-off shotgun hunts Obama down.
How Obama is thinking ahead, and I agree with the writer's assessment, though from a different angle. I've told y'all - he can't be seen as that Big Black Brute beating up on that 'Poor Defenseless White Woman'.
::
Yup. We saw the same thing in our house. And Bernard nailed it to the wall. If he flattened Mrs. Nixon to her face, those white women who can't see past Mrs. Nixon's treachery would be leading the lynching party.
I agree with you, Craig. Obama said as much at a rally this week (I think it was in NC). During the Q&A; session, he told a questioner that he won't have to be so restrained during the general. MSM didn't pick up on this because they're too worried about the Weather Underground, but what he's implicitly saying is I can't brutalize the white woman because if I do, I'll get lynched.
To Truthseeker, thanks for the "Real Time" links. And I agree with you that the "vetting" thing is bs. Faux News has been rifling through Obama's trash for over a year now and the Chicago Tribune has been doing it since he ran for state office. These organizations tried Rezko; that didn't stick. So now they have to manufactor sh*t: Rev. Wright, muslim, lapel pen, Pledge of Allegiance, Weather Underground, and bitter-gate.
Obama's 'bitter' commentis not just snobbish nor even merely wrongheaded. It's an attack on two of the critical advantages the United States holds over most of the rest of the Western world. In the other G7 developed nations, nobody clings to God 'n' guns. The guns got taken away, and the Europeans gave up on churchgoing once they embraced Big Government as the new religion.
How's that working out? Compared with America, France and Germany have been more or less economically stagnant for the past quarter-century, living permanently with unemployment rates significantly higher than in the United States.
And Germany and France have now embraced a conservative platform to reform their economic woes. Ireland is thriving due in large part to providing businesses with the lowest corporate tax rate in the world.
Republicans are going to continue to be called racist in any event. The flag pin is the least of Obama's problems.
Democrats are so used to being treated most favorably by the media. But now, the media itself as fractured as the Democrat party itself. All objectivity is out the window.
Obama supporters here and elsewhere in the blogosphere will continue to only 'see what they want to see' and spin away anything that threatens Obama's nomination.
On the war and taxes, two issues that are important to me, serious debate and discussion about Obama's debate performance are lacking.
Serious debate behind the ideological premise of Obama's 'bitter' remarks is non-exisitent among his supporters as well.
Refusing to acknowledge Obama's vulnerabilities, contradictions and flaws, will not serve him well in the general election. Shooting the messenger and crying foul do not remove or dispel the challenges he will face against McCain.
Once he wins the nomination, as I believe he will, perhaps the focus on issues of policy, ideology and character will become more substantive, as all 3 of these factors are important when electing a president.
That's copyright infringement and I think the post should be removed.
::
That's THAT'S a fairy tale.
I saw that question and answer too and I think he was saying is that he won't fight a Democrat like she's a Republican the way she's fighting him.
Think about it, he really doesn't have to.
I agree that it definitely is a slam but I don't think it is OK at all to call us [an] "abomination". Let Hagee keep that for his hate towards homosexuals.
Chuck is slick with the multi-faceted ultimate insult but I can't roll with Chuck. He may as well call us n-words and n-word lovers as far as I am concerned because when you get to this level there is little difference in the degree. Nope, I can't help chuck by embracing insults against myself while they laugh at the desk about how young, naive and gullible we are.
Chuck Todd is a republican and I find it amusing that his subtle con works on MSNBC viewers. We long time CSPAN fans remember chuck from back in the hotline days when for 5-10 minutes they got to skewer the democrats and praise the republicans when they were supposed to present the overall political landscape. All those years, Dems must have been all bad and Repubs all good in the view of good old Chuck.
You are superslick chuck but some of us are neither young or dumb and we remember your number and are also in-touch enough to use the internet. Surprise, Surprise!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Audience Member Brings Up Lewinsky and Says Hillary Needs to be President in order Move Past it all
I like them.
They're still trying to peg us as ' emotional' and 'irrational' and a 'cult'. When in fact, we're very sane, and know how to get our point across, and they're stunned.
Think about it, he really doesn't have to.
That is too true. Oh so true.
At least the post was read, but unfortunately the points raised have not been addressed. Only requested that they be censured.
Mark Steyn was the author of the comments @ 8:48
Here's Larry Kudlow:
During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
In fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's cap-gains tax increase.
This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It's another cultural misstep by Obama. I can't help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.
In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.
The problem is John McCain does have ties with idealogical, hate spewing pastors (priests, ministers - whatever they are called). I can't remember everything the guy said (or his name) but one was that Katrina was the result of America's tolerance of homosexuals, islam is evil blah, blah, blah.
I'll post his name later - I can only open one window at a time
So, are pastoral associations of the candidates in bounds or out?
Do you believe voters should excuse Wright, but not Hagge? Should both candidates be held up to further scrutiny or not? Should they be treated equally, and if not, why?
There is an opposing viewpoint that states that the demographic group most often voting against their economic self-interest, most inclined to vote on social issue are, in fact, college-educated, higher income earners?
Do you believe this to be true?
They can afford to - the poor and middle class working folks cannot.
McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment or gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
Hillary also has ties to a few unsavory characters as do most politicians. So the point is that these are none issues. Thomas Jefferson said a few unsavory things about Black people - do we ignore everything about him and banish him from our history books or do we focus on the positive.
I just wonder why there is so much focus on Barack's acquaintances? And especially when it is only two out of how many?
I used to work with a former Black Panther. So? Some of my favorite teachers and mentors were part of guerilla feminist group that defaced billboards in the 1980's. And?
Bush was a drunk and a drug addict and ran several businesses into the ground...okay, this one doesn't prove my point. ; )
-----------------------------------
ahahahahahahahahahahaha
Too funny!
Because everyone assumed that because Obama was a relative nobody before 2004, he didn't have the shadiness. He was a "safe" candidate.
But now that people have started looking into him since he's the "front-runner," all the dirt is coming to light. And I bet that Rev. Wright, Ayers, or the lady from CodePink who's a fundraiser for him aren't the least of it.
The focus is more on Wright because the truth is, voters have so little to go on with Obama. He is virtually a newcomer on the national political stage, thrust onto the scene by his speech a the last Democratic convention. His record in the Illinois State Senate and his record in the US Senate are thin, and highly partisan. This calls into question his ability to 'reach across the aisle' and to effect real 'change' in such a highly partisan political climate.
Lacking any evidence of working on any major political issue (ie judicial appointments, immigration, etc.) in the US Senate, those seeking to become more informed look to Illinois and the roots of his political career. Personal and professional affiliations are also examined.
As children we are often taught to choose our friends wisely. We are told that hanging with the 'wrong crowd' can get us into trouble.
So it is true in national, presidential politics. The quality and quantity of a candidate's political and personal relationships are used by many to determine the 'content of ones character' and the quality of their judgment.
McCain and Obama should be scrutinized for the length and depth of their religious affiliations. They should expect to be criticized when those associations are seen as being out of the mainstream by a majority of voters. Voters can decide if it its a big enough deal to them to disqualify either candidate from having ones vote, but a double standard should not be applied.
McCain said in an April 17 interview with Bloomberg TV,"Well, in the case of Reverend Wright, I have expressed in the past that I am sure that Senator Obama does not share the extremist statements that Reverend Wright made.
This is the same interview in which Obama distorted McCain's statements on the economy.
To read the entire interview, here's a link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/john_mccain_on_bloomberg_tv.html
McCain has an interview with Stephanopolous (sp?)tomorrow so we shall see...
And I'm sorry... no one is squeaky clean because "clean" is relative. Personally, associations with Code Pink is a plus in my book!
Great discussion guys/gals!
Do you think this code pink bundler will make it more difficult for Obama to assert his independence from the base if the situation in Iraq requires us to stay?
He would be breaking his MAIN campaign promise and during the debate he reaffirmed his commitment to pulling out the troops regardless of what the generals say.
The democrats don't realize that the situation in Iraq is going to require a presence for the forseeable future. So when they get into office-after being swept in on antiwar sentiment-and they learn that lesson, it kills their standing with the base.
A lot of the representatives who were swept in in 06 on the same sentiment may well find themselves bounced out the door, for the same reason. And I'd love to run against Webb when he's up for reelection.
But if you notice, the Code Pink connection isn't even being heavily reported. And if you were to try to mention it to most of the Obamaists and the liberal media, they'd write you off.
So if it is true that Obama is making 2 promises he can't keep, leaving Iraq and raising taxes on the middle class, will McCain use this as a line of attack?
I would be more inclined to vote for Obama if he were to demonstrate independent judgment and come out and say, I would like to leave Iraq, but I must reserve the right to stay.
Also, the same for raising taxes. It doesn't make any sense to raise taxes in a recession. Plus, I wish he would acknowledge that raising the payroll and capital gains taxes affect many income earners in the $50,000 to $1000,000 range.
Perhaps he will move to the center after the nomination, as he has promised to be a moderate. I will be watching and listening.
As for Code Pink, just like Ayers this will bubble to the surface.
Hillary is already denouncing the 'activist base' and trying to bring moderate dems to her side.
Remember, you're talking about someone who preaches that he was "against the war from the start." that's so intricately tied to what his campaign's about that anything less than a complete withdrawal-regardless of the end results of such-will be seen a failure to the base. So on that issue, to suggest what you are loses him the nomination.
I don't think McCain uses either as attack points. Once you get past the rhetoric, both your points should be common sense.
I guess Steven Spielberg will be making a movie about it anytime now.
I guess connecting him to terrorists (Ayers, Hamas) and terrorist "supporters" (CodePink) is the final Hail Mary.
Let's see who, if anyone, catches it.
If elected, even though exiting Iraq and not raising taxes are 'common sense' would the Congress and the base put so much pressure on Obama, that he would have no choice but to submit to their will?
I don't think these associations are a 'hail mary' but will be used to build a pile upon which to lay 'the last straw.'
Painting Obama into a far-left liberal corner will erode his claim to govern with independence, bipartisanship and moderation.
He will be seen as so beholden to the far-left, anti-war, move-on groups that his judgment and independence will be called into question.
Probably. The base (which-oddly enough-is what "al qaida" translates to) would kill him.
I tend to agree.
Does this make him 'unelectable'?
Apparently, that's what you hope will happen. That you still think most Americans are stupid enough to be duped yet again. That the Baby Boomer Battles still have cache in 2008.
CodePink co-hosted that fundraiser ages ago on the political calendar.
Bringing it up now is a Hail Mary.
Like I said, let's see who catches it.
My money's on #2.
What I truly want is to be able to believe that Obama is a independent thinker and a moderate politician.
Hillary is working to divide the party into the 'activists' or 'new dem party power base' vs. 'the common man' or 'old dem party power base.' She is using the unions to raise questions about Obama's radical associations and his self-proclaimed superior judgment, all under the guise of "this is what the Republicans will do."
I agree, it is up to the voters to decide the primaries, but the superdelegates will still be left to make the final call.
Chuck Todd has acknowledged the intensity and passion of Sen. Obama's supporters after the ABC "debate" and how the Democratic party could be torn apart for ever.
I maintain this "force" (us) should be recognized by the super delegates. It is a reality.....!
"We tried to comprehend the enormous scale of the so-called "collateral damage" in Iraq as speakers cited surveys that estimated about a million Iraqi civilians have died since the U.S. invasion, and that over four million Iraqis were forced from their homes. The speakers told of Iraqis, being without power and water, begging for food and fuel, and only wanting foreign troops and the 180,000 private contractors and mercenaries to leave so they can begin to rebuild their devastated country."
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
Collins writes, "The Miami Herald story (”Pentagon Study: War is a ‘Debacle’ “) distorts the nature of and intent of my personal research project. It was not an NDU study, nor was it a Pentagon study. Indeed, the implication of the Herald story was that this study was mostly about current events. Such is not the case. It was mainly about the period 2002-04. The story also hypes a number of paragraphs, many of which are quoted out of context. The study does not “lay much of the blame” on Secretary Rumsfeld for problems in the conduct of the war, nor does it say that he “bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” It does not single out “Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley” for criticism.
Here is a fair summary of my personal research, which formally is NDU INSS Occasional Paper 5, “Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath.”
This study examines how the United States chose to go to war in Iraq, how its decision-making process functioned, and what can be done to improve that process. The central finding of this study is that U.S. efforts in Iraq were hobbled by a set of faulty assumptions, a flawed planning effort, and a continuing inability to create security conditions in Iraq that could have fostered meaningful advances in stabilization, reconstruction, and governance. With the best of intentions, the United States toppled a vile, dangerous regime but has been unable to replace it with a stable entity. Even allowing for progress under the Surge, the study insists that mistakes in the Iraq operation cry out in the mid- to long-term for improvements in the U.S. decision-making and policy execution systems.
The study recommends the development of a national planning charter, improving the qualifications of national security planners, streamlining policy execution in the field, improving military education, strengthening the Department of State and USAID, and reviewing the tangled legal authorities for complex contingencies. The study ends with a plea to improve alliance relations and to exercise caution in deciding to go to war."
There's a radio talk show host from Chicago on the CNN Rick on the Road Show explaining why the "elitist" tag applied to SBO was offensive to blacks.