When I first happened upon The Huffington Post, I was pretty turned off. It seemed to be another example of the left trying to be like the right and thus, being a real turn off for me. Generally, I don't mind pointed criticism, even if it is cruel and unusual, but the Hufpost really seemed to be the other side of the same coin. Normally, my first impressions are accurate.
But I have given it a second look lately and I have to admit I think I was wrong. Take, for example, a recent piece by the woman herself entitled Probing the Political Paradox: Why The Right Still Gets To Set The Agenda. I urge all of you to check it out. Here are my favorite lines, with commentary.
"And I concluded that there are three main areas to look at, not only to help us understand how we got in the mess we're in, but also to help us get out: the media, the role of fear in our politics, and the failure of political leadership."
Yes, the "liberal" media is nothing of the sort. All of the news outlets are still on the Jeremiah Wright bandwagon and yet I see no mention of John McCain's skeletons anywhere (e.g. Pastor John Hagee). Fear is a topic I have talked a lot about on this blog and it's really true. Our country is run on half truths and fear. And there most certainly has been a massive failure of political leadership on both sides of the aisle.
"These three factors have combined to allow the lunatic fringe that has taken over the Right to hijack our country, our democracy, and our Constitution. So that 28 percent of the population that continues to support George W. Bush no matter how many bodies pile up in Iraq, how many jobs disappear overseas, how many For Sale signs go up on their block, or how high gas prices get, continues to dominate our politics."
Exactly correct. You really have to give credit to Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.. for being so adept at manipulating that 28 percent into submission. Kind funny that those who yearn for less government and whine about a nanny state have rolled over like little babies in front of these three daddies and continued to vote against their economic interests. But my favorite bit in her post?
"...the media which remains hopelessly addicted to the false belief that in order to be fair and balanced every story needs to be given the "on the one hand... and on the other" treatment. But not every story has two sides -- and the truth is often to be found not in the middle but solidly on one side or the other."
This really resonated with me personally. There have been some emails and lines in comments that have come up, accusing me of being more conciliatory towards conservatives, even weaker in my criticisms. I have really made a concerted effort over the last year or so to see their side and to fully understand it. I felt it was only fair. So, it is true, I have been consciously trying to see the middle of the road more so than I have in the past. Honestly, I'm not sure if I want to anymore. I think I have utterly failed in what Shakespeare championed so long ago:
This above all: To Thine Own Self Be True.
I haven't true to what I know is right and best for this country. It makes me physically ill to think that I have even tried to hear the other side on some key issues or even wasted thought on their delusions. I have come to realize that when you listen to some conservatives talk about the direction they would like to take this country (an unrestrained free market, stay the course in Iraq, no investment in education or health care), it's almost as if they live in a fantasy land...a place where their unhinged emotions and willing ignorance can flourish. Flagrant denial of what is actually happening to our country is the order of the day.
Take a look at Thomas Friedman's piece from yesterday's Times, Who Will Tell The People?
I am in complete agreement with him and, when I think about his piece and Ariana Huffington's piece at the same time, I realize that it is pointless to try to see the middle ground on issues where there is no middle ground. Time is running out folks. We have to face the unpleasant fact that our country is horribly broken and I am simply not going to attempt to appease these psychotic putzes anymore. As Friedman says:
We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people....I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
There is something that is going on...something insanely horrible from an economic standpoint....that is a direct result of the conservative ideology of the last eight years. Friedman quotes Harvard's president, Drew Faust:
"Cutbacks in government research funds were resulting in downsized labs, layoffs of post docs, slipping morale and more conservative science that shies away from the big research questions. China, India, Singapore ... have adopted biomedical research and the building of biotechnology clusters as national goals. Suddenly, those who train in America have significant options elsewhere.”
This is the same part of the world we owe large sums of money to while we sink deeper and deeper into debt fighting a war that is not doing any damage at all to Al Qaeda. The reason why this election is more important than most...probably more important than the one in 1932...is that we are "living on borrowed time and a borrowed dime," as Friedman puts it.
We no longer have the luxury of trying to mollify certain elements of our society and be apologists for neoconservative insanity. Our country as we know it is, quite frankly, doomed if we continue down this path. Take a look around you and see what happens to a country when it is run by someone who has a child like concept of...well....everything. The biggest problem, really, has always been that our nation's worst president was a Republican. If he had been a Democrat, we would've been able to move past the lunacy much quicker. But when you have a belief system where the number one rule is admit you are wrong and all is lost, it becomes tougher to evolve and see with width of vision.
When your feet are made of stone, it's hard to walk. Sadly, we need to start sprinting.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Friday, May 02, 2008
Pefectly Summed Up
I pulled this quote off of Kevin Baker's blog, The Smallest Minority. It sums up, in a very eloquent way, how the conservative movement in this country has gone off the rails. It really dove tails nicely with a discussion that has been going in comments regarding national security.
And it was made by a conservative!
Take the republican party over the last 15 years. There is a central group of leaders who control 'conservatism' and conservatism is whatever they say it is right now. And what worse, it works. They can propose an idea that a few years ago would have been seen as profoundly un-conservative and their followers we become rabidly in favor of it. Inconvenient past history is covered up. People who point out the incongruity are denounced as the enemy and thrown out. We even have 'two minute hates' directed at libertarians who refuse to go along with the program.
Truly we've come to love Big Brother--and Big Brother is us.
---Stormy Dragon
And it was made by a conservative!
Take the republican party over the last 15 years. There is a central group of leaders who control 'conservatism' and conservatism is whatever they say it is right now. And what worse, it works. They can propose an idea that a few years ago would have been seen as profoundly un-conservative and their followers we become rabidly in favor of it. Inconvenient past history is covered up. People who point out the incongruity are denounced as the enemy and thrown out. We even have 'two minute hates' directed at libertarians who refuse to go along with the program.
Truly we've come to love Big Brother--and Big Brother is us.
---Stormy Dragon
Thursday, May 01, 2008
His Girl
Michelle Obama is simply extraordinary. This video gives great insight into her as a individual and as the spouse of the man who could change the world.
The last minute and a half is wonderful.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wrapped Neatly With A Bow
As I flipped through the news channels yesterday morning, I saw something that brought a smile to my face. And it has lasted for the last 24 hours.
Fox News was discussing Hillary Clinton's call for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Barack Obama. Take a look at the video and the picture they put up as they were discussing this topic in the above clip.
What a bunch of fucking morons!
The photo they put up is of Frederick Douglas, famed 19th century abolitionist, and not Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's debate opponent in 1958. Why on earth would Lincoln debate someone who was on his side?!!?
I can just see how the knuckle dragging minds at Faux News connected the dots on this one: Lincoln...black people....Douglas ...Frederick Douglas...black...find photo...fire bad...water good...
For those of you on the right who want to be taken seriously and treated as scholars, you are going to have to start by ceasing to defend Fox Noise as reliable news source.
The real question is...did any of their viewers notice?
Monday, April 28, 2008
We Have No Plan
Lost in the "liberal" media's coverage of the latest sound bite that proves that Senator Obama is a Muslim fanatic who hates America and wants to enslave the white race, was the release of the latest, official update on how our country is progressing against Al Qaeda, specifically dealing with the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Remember Al Qaeda? The people who actually attacked us on 9-11? I am sure that it will come to a comfort to all of you that our current leadership still does not give a rat's ass about bin Laden, Zawahari, the Taliban and the complete reconstitution of Al Qaeda to pre-9-11 levels.
Last Thursday, the Government Accounting Office, which is the non partisan, investigative arm of Congress, released a report which confirms virtually everything that I have said on this blog in regards to the Bush administration and its policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The report states that the Bush administration has failed to develop a comprehensive plan to eliminate Al Qaeda and its sanctuary in Pakistan's remote tribal region and that the United States has no plan that "includes all elements of national power — diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic and law enforcement support — called for by the various national-security strategies and Congress.
It goes on further to say that "the United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA region," referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. In addition, the report details how the Bush administration has relied heavily on Pakistani forces to deal with the problem.
All of you may recall a column I put up in December of 2005 entitled Flunk You! , which detailed the Bush Administration's complete ineptitude in enacting nearly all of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations. Here we are, nearly two and a half years later, and guess what? They still don't a have a plan! Great...
So, my question to conservatives is....and I am beginning to tire of this seeming endless broken record....why do you continue to support a policy and an administration that so clearly does not care about national security?
To this day, I am still amazed at the complete ignorance and seeming laissez faire attitude amongst supporters of this policy. I am beginning to feel like Sandy Berger during the transition in 2000....jumping up and down, waving my arms at what I see as being an extremely serious threat...only to be met with laughter and derision by folks on the right who feel that Iraq is more important. Even Barack Obama has been chastised by the right for wanting to bomb targets inside of Pakistan that may be Al Qaeda strongholds.
Huh?
What in the fuck happened to "if you harbor a terrorist than you are a terrorist?"
I guess all of that went out the window when half of our country decided it was more important to elect someone they could drink beer with and invite to a barbecue. A person, I might add, who everyday makes it abundantly clear that we are in Iraq for only one reason. I suppose if you don't know what that reason is, then I would be curious as to what the earth looks like with your head buried so far underneath it.
We are right back to where we were on Sept 10, 2001, complete with wall to wall coverage of shark attacks (see: Fox News) and meaningless gossip about celebrities' blow job habits. Al Qaeda has made it very clear that they want to outdo 9-11 in their next attack. We know what they are capable of doing. Can anyone out there think of a reason why we don't have a plan?
More importantly, does anyone care?
Last Thursday, the Government Accounting Office, which is the non partisan, investigative arm of Congress, released a report which confirms virtually everything that I have said on this blog in regards to the Bush administration and its policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The report states that the Bush administration has failed to develop a comprehensive plan to eliminate Al Qaeda and its sanctuary in Pakistan's remote tribal region and that the United States has no plan that "includes all elements of national power — diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic and law enforcement support — called for by the various national-security strategies and Congress.It goes on further to say that "the United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA region," referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. In addition, the report details how the Bush administration has relied heavily on Pakistani forces to deal with the problem.
All of you may recall a column I put up in December of 2005 entitled Flunk You! , which detailed the Bush Administration's complete ineptitude in enacting nearly all of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations. Here we are, nearly two and a half years later, and guess what? They still don't a have a plan! Great...
So, my question to conservatives is....and I am beginning to tire of this seeming endless broken record....why do you continue to support a policy and an administration that so clearly does not care about national security?
To this day, I am still amazed at the complete ignorance and seeming laissez faire attitude amongst supporters of this policy. I am beginning to feel like Sandy Berger during the transition in 2000....jumping up and down, waving my arms at what I see as being an extremely serious threat...only to be met with laughter and derision by folks on the right who feel that Iraq is more important. Even Barack Obama has been chastised by the right for wanting to bomb targets inside of Pakistan that may be Al Qaeda strongholds.
Huh?
What in the fuck happened to "if you harbor a terrorist than you are a terrorist?"
I guess all of that went out the window when half of our country decided it was more important to elect someone they could drink beer with and invite to a barbecue. A person, I might add, who everyday makes it abundantly clear that we are in Iraq for only one reason. I suppose if you don't know what that reason is, then I would be curious as to what the earth looks like with your head buried so far underneath it.We are right back to where we were on Sept 10, 2001, complete with wall to wall coverage of shark attacks (see: Fox News) and meaningless gossip about celebrities' blow job habits. Al Qaeda has made it very clear that they want to outdo 9-11 in their next attack. We know what they are capable of doing. Can anyone out there think of a reason why we don't have a plan?
More importantly, does anyone care?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Son of Oh No....
Just a few short hours after I put up the post below, this caught my eye on CNN.com. I thought the Democrats were the only ones that were divided and needed healing. Oh those wacky Ron Paul supporters....
Oh No.....
Did anyone else know that the Republicans had a primary on Tuesday? With all the hubbub on the Democratic side, 807,000 Republicans turned out to vote in a primary that won't make any difference. Slight hitch, though, for John McCain.....215,000 of them voted for either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul.
If a quarter of the the Republican base vanishes in the general election, either by staying home, voting for the Democrat, or voting independent, you can rest assured that however "weakened" the Democratic candidate is from the primary, they are going to slaughter McCain. All you have to do to see that I am right is look at the voter registration, state by state, and see that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 4-1 in some cases.
Smells like the beginning of a whole lot of dead elephants.......
If a quarter of the the Republican base vanishes in the general election, either by staying home, voting for the Democrat, or voting independent, you can rest assured that however "weakened" the Democratic candidate is from the primary, they are going to slaughter McCain. All you have to do to see that I am right is look at the voter registration, state by state, and see that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 4-1 in some cases.
Smells like the beginning of a whole lot of dead elephants.......
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Straight Poop
Have I mentioned that I love Electoral-Vote.Com? I know I gush like a school girl over Andy's site but it really is magnificent. For those of you who love polls and want to check on the hard numbers so far, it is second to none. Here is a quote from today's report which jibes with what I have been saying.
A point that has come up repeatedly with Hillary Clinton's strong wins in blue-collar states is can Obama get downscale whites to vote for him in the general election? The NY Times has a story about polling on this issue in these states. The bottom line is that while many blue-collar workers prefer Clinton, they still prefer any Democrat to John McCain so the Democrats are not in grave danger of losing states like Pennsylvania that they must win in November. What Obama brings to the table is sudden competitiveness in states like Virginia, Iowa, Missouri, and Colorado, which Republicans normally win easily.
So, basically, when you hear the "liberal" media talk about how Obama can't close the deal with white, blue collar voters, they are sensationalizing the story to make the race seem more exciting. He will win all the states John Kerry won plus Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, and very possibly two of the following four states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.
Sounds shocking, I know, but these states are totally in play. Dean's 50 state strategy may be more realistic than was thought a few months ago. Hillary has no clue what she is talking about when she says that the Democrats have no chance of winning them. It is so demonstrative of how this election really is about folks who are trapped in the old way of doing politics simply not getting it.
Speaking of not getting it, the North Carolina GOP is running attack ads against Obama, courtesy of the guy who brought us Willie Horton. Thanks, GOP NC and please keep it up. We are starting to see a correlation between more votes for Obama when people go negative on him.
I suggest mentioning his middle name a few times.....
A point that has come up repeatedly with Hillary Clinton's strong wins in blue-collar states is can Obama get downscale whites to vote for him in the general election? The NY Times has a story about polling on this issue in these states. The bottom line is that while many blue-collar workers prefer Clinton, they still prefer any Democrat to John McCain so the Democrats are not in grave danger of losing states like Pennsylvania that they must win in November. What Obama brings to the table is sudden competitiveness in states like Virginia, Iowa, Missouri, and Colorado, which Republicans normally win easily.
So, basically, when you hear the "liberal" media talk about how Obama can't close the deal with white, blue collar voters, they are sensationalizing the story to make the race seem more exciting. He will win all the states John Kerry won plus Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, and very possibly two of the following four states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.
Sounds shocking, I know, but these states are totally in play. Dean's 50 state strategy may be more realistic than was thought a few months ago. Hillary has no clue what she is talking about when she says that the Democrats have no chance of winning them. It is so demonstrative of how this election really is about folks who are trapped in the old way of doing politics simply not getting it.
Speaking of not getting it, the North Carolina GOP is running attack ads against Obama, courtesy of the guy who brought us Willie Horton. Thanks, GOP NC and please keep it up. We are starting to see a correlation between more votes for Obama when people go negative on him.
I suggest mentioning his middle name a few times.....
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Pennsylvania Wrap Up
The Hildawg won by 10 points last night. Here are the numbers:
Senator Clinton: 1,258,245 votes, 80 delegates
Senator Obama: 1,042,297, 66 delegates
Looking at the percentages, she wins 55-45, 3 more points than I had predicted. The percentages look bad but the actual numbers look pretty even...depends on how you want to look at it. The "liberal" media is spinning that Obama can't connect with the white, beer drinking, bowling, gun loving crowd so McCain will some of those votes. I think it is complete crap and here's why.
First of all, Hillary had the entire Pennsylvania machine behind her...Governor Rendell, both mayors and tons of elected officials. Obama had Senator Casey and Rep Murphy. If Obama gets the nomination, they will be working to get the vote out for him.
Second, take a look at this map from CNN of all the counties in Pennsylvania. At first glance, you might say that Hillary was more in touch with the rural vote with all the light blue. Scroll your mouse over...say...Buck's County, which is basically the crowd with whom Obama supposedly can't connect. He gets 42,000 votes to her 71,000...a large victory for her to be sure but he is still getting a good chunk of people in these areas. Take a look at some of the smaller counties. She gets around 60 percent of the vote but he still gets people in these very rural counties. It doesn't seem like they ALL were for Hillary as the media makes it appear.
If I were the Obama campaign, I would interview some of these folks and find out why they voted for him. He needs to know this so he can use it in Indiana. If he can win Indiana, it's over. Remember, he won in Iowa and Wisconsin, states that have similar demographics.
Here's my question....two million people voted...what happened to the other two million?
Senator Clinton: 1,258,245 votes, 80 delegates
Senator Obama: 1,042,297, 66 delegates
Looking at the percentages, she wins 55-45, 3 more points than I had predicted. The percentages look bad but the actual numbers look pretty even...depends on how you want to look at it. The "liberal" media is spinning that Obama can't connect with the white, beer drinking, bowling, gun loving crowd so McCain will some of those votes. I think it is complete crap and here's why.
First of all, Hillary had the entire Pennsylvania machine behind her...Governor Rendell, both mayors and tons of elected officials. Obama had Senator Casey and Rep Murphy. If Obama gets the nomination, they will be working to get the vote out for him.
Second, take a look at this map from CNN of all the counties in Pennsylvania. At first glance, you might say that Hillary was more in touch with the rural vote with all the light blue. Scroll your mouse over...say...Buck's County, which is basically the crowd with whom Obama supposedly can't connect. He gets 42,000 votes to her 71,000...a large victory for her to be sure but he is still getting a good chunk of people in these areas. Take a look at some of the smaller counties. She gets around 60 percent of the vote but he still gets people in these very rural counties. It doesn't seem like they ALL were for Hillary as the media makes it appear.
If I were the Obama campaign, I would interview some of these folks and find out why they voted for him. He needs to know this so he can use it in Indiana. If he can win Indiana, it's over. Remember, he won in Iowa and Wisconsin, states that have similar demographics.
Here's my question....two million people voted...what happened to the other two million?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pennsylvania Prognostication
I think I am just going to predict tonight's results and save the rest of the primary predictions for later next week. I have been doing some training this week and have not had time to fully prepare a rest of the contest crystal ball illumination.
So, I think Hillary will win tonight by 7 points. This is more than what most are predicting but less than the large margin she needs to convince superdelegates that she should still be in the race. It's going to be interesting to see how she does in the "Alabama" part of the state. If she wins 70-30 or more than I think we can safely say that Obama offended the white, beer drinking, bowling gun nuts. Anything less than that and I don't think his comments made much of a difference and I would call it a small victory for him.
I also want to say to those Democrats who are expressing concern that Obama, should he get the nomination, will not be able to win Pennsylvania....You are idiots. Please shut the fuck up. John Kerry carried that state in 2004. If HE can carry Pennsylvania, Obama will win there for sure, given the fact that people are even more dissatisfied with the shape of the country.
So, I think Hillary will win tonight by 7 points. This is more than what most are predicting but less than the large margin she needs to convince superdelegates that she should still be in the race. It's going to be interesting to see how she does in the "Alabama" part of the state. If she wins 70-30 or more than I think we can safely say that Obama offended the white, beer drinking, bowling gun nuts. Anything less than that and I don't think his comments made much of a difference and I would call it a small victory for him.
I also want to say to those Democrats who are expressing concern that Obama, should he get the nomination, will not be able to win Pennsylvania....You are idiots. Please shut the fuck up. John Kerry carried that state in 2004. If HE can carry Pennsylvania, Obama will win there for sure, given the fact that people are even more dissatisfied with the shape of the country.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Gee, I'm Shocked
The lead story in today's New York Times discusses the Pentagon's influence on the various news networks guest military analysts and how they cover the war. The article contains several points which have been made on this blog for the last 4+ years, one of which is that the media is not "liberal" and will help sell whatever its corporate owners want it to sell, in this case the war in Iraq.
But the best part of the Time's investigation is the exploration of the links between these retired military officers and defense contractors. From the article...
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
To the people out there who still support the war....do you understand what is going on here and why we are really in Iraq? Or is this just another traitorous article from the Times?
But the best part of the Time's investigation is the exploration of the links between these retired military officers and defense contractors. From the article...
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
To the people out there who still support the war....do you understand what is going on here and why we are really in Iraq? Or is this just another traitorous article from the Times?
If you answered yes to the last question, put down your cup of Kool Aid and please report to your local neurosurgeon for your annual checkup on the lobotomy you received in November of 2000.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
.....then you are an Idiot.
I can always rely on Bill Maher. Below are two clips from last Friday's show. The first is from the New Rules segment at the end of the show. His final new rule is usually the best and he really drove it out of the park with this one. My favorite line?
"If you think Barack Obama is going to take away your guns, the you are an armed idiot."
This leads quite nicely into the next clip, shown earlier in the show, in which author Jeremy Scahill goes into some small towns in rural Pennsylvania and sees if Obama offended anyone with his "bitter" remarks. As I had hoped, the "Alabama" which is in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, is more pro Obama than one might think. I think some folks over on Kevin Baker's blog aren't going to be too happy.
They are probably going to blow a bowel when, in the last part of the segment, Scahill visits a gun range and finds Obama supporters there as well. I am reminded of the 2004 election and how out of touch liberals seemed with what was really driving voters to the polls (fear, gays, doom etc..). This time around it is apparent to me that conservative pundits and much of the "liberal" media don't have a fucking clue what is really on people's minds.
Shh....let's not tell them.
Aw, who I am kidding? Like they would be reflective, change their mind, and listen.
Sheeya....right!
"If you think Barack Obama is going to take away your guns, the you are an armed idiot."
This leads quite nicely into the next clip, shown earlier in the show, in which author Jeremy Scahill goes into some small towns in rural Pennsylvania and sees if Obama offended anyone with his "bitter" remarks. As I had hoped, the "Alabama" which is in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, is more pro Obama than one might think. I think some folks over on Kevin Baker's blog aren't going to be too happy.
They are probably going to blow a bowel when, in the last part of the segment, Scahill visits a gun range and finds Obama supporters there as well. I am reminded of the 2004 election and how out of touch liberals seemed with what was really driving voters to the polls (fear, gays, doom etc..). This time around it is apparent to me that conservative pundits and much of the "liberal" media don't have a fucking clue what is really on people's minds.
Shh....let's not tell them.
Aw, who I am kidding? Like they would be reflective, change their mind, and listen.
Sheeya....right!
Friday, April 18, 2008
An Excellent Strategy
Rather than ripping ABC news commentators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis, as Tom Shales has done wonderfully in the Washington Post, I think maybe I should be commending them. I also think that I should thank the right wing douche bag brigade, especially those in the blogsphere, for continuing to fight their battles using 2004 technology (Guns of August anyone?).
Why?
Since the debate Obama has picked up five more superdelegates which add to his overall delegate lead. I think it is very likely, based on the polls as well as the "man on the street" reaction to the debate, that in the last few primaries, as well as the general election in the fall, the American people aren't going to react kindly to "gotcha" politics any longer. Sure, they might vote against Obama because they think Hillary will do a better job on health care or they don't want government running their health care. That's fine by me. They are voting on the issues and they should keep drilling Obama on why he is not being specific enough on some of his key policy points, my chief complaint about him thus far.
But the rest of it? The flag pin-Ayers-Wright-elitist stuff? I spent most of the week pissed off that people weren't focusing on the issues. Actually, they are. ABC received 15,ooo negative emails in anger that it took 52 minutes to get to an actual issue in the debate last Tuesday. Some conservatives I know are lamenting the fact that we didn't get to see Obama's stance on certain issues so people could really see how off base he is in regards to some of these topics. Even John McCain, recently a guest on the Hardball college tour with Chris Matthews, said he is going to stop any 527s that are running these kind of attacks against Obama. He asked Obama to do the same.
Bottom line, the more these topics come up, the more it benefits Obama. I think McCain knows this and is trying to get the loud mouth putzes in his party to shut the hell up. McCain is a smart guy and he has been out there talking to people. They don't want to hear this crap anymore. It is also becoming evident that these attacks on Obama toughen him up for the fall and exposes, a think a bit prematurely, the right's game plan.
So, by all means, keep piling on. It seems to be working for Obama. Thanks!
Why?
Since the debate Obama has picked up five more superdelegates which add to his overall delegate lead. I think it is very likely, based on the polls as well as the "man on the street" reaction to the debate, that in the last few primaries, as well as the general election in the fall, the American people aren't going to react kindly to "gotcha" politics any longer. Sure, they might vote against Obama because they think Hillary will do a better job on health care or they don't want government running their health care. That's fine by me. They are voting on the issues and they should keep drilling Obama on why he is not being specific enough on some of his key policy points, my chief complaint about him thus far.
But the rest of it? The flag pin-Ayers-Wright-elitist stuff? I spent most of the week pissed off that people weren't focusing on the issues. Actually, they are. ABC received 15,ooo negative emails in anger that it took 52 minutes to get to an actual issue in the debate last Tuesday. Some conservatives I know are lamenting the fact that we didn't get to see Obama's stance on certain issues so people could really see how off base he is in regards to some of these topics. Even John McCain, recently a guest on the Hardball college tour with Chris Matthews, said he is going to stop any 527s that are running these kind of attacks against Obama. He asked Obama to do the same.
Bottom line, the more these topics come up, the more it benefits Obama. I think McCain knows this and is trying to get the loud mouth putzes in his party to shut the hell up. McCain is a smart guy and he has been out there talking to people. They don't want to hear this crap anymore. It is also becoming evident that these attacks on Obama toughen him up for the fall and exposes, a think a bit prematurely, the right's game plan.
So, by all means, keep piling on. It seems to be working for Obama. Thanks!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Last Night
I was appalled at last night's debate and it further proves my point that we may not deserve someone like Barack Obama. One would think that that the first 45 minutes would cover important issues like the economy, Iraq, health care, and education. The four topics discussed?
-whether or not Obama is an elitist vis a vis his comments in San Francisco
-Reverend Wright
-William Ayers
-Flag pins.
If these are the issues that people want to focus on, our country is doomed. There is no other way to put it. I am hoping that voters in 2008 are smarter than that.
We'll see.....
-whether or not Obama is an elitist vis a vis his comments in San Francisco
-Reverend Wright
-William Ayers
-Flag pins.
If these are the issues that people want to focus on, our country is doomed. There is no other way to put it. I am hoping that voters in 2008 are smarter than that.
We'll see.....
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
So far, no effect
There seems to be little or no effect in the polls taken after Barack Obama's comments. Andy over at electoral vote. com has several polls up if you want to take a look.
I'd like to see what the polls show later in the week after the 24-7 news coverage of the comments by the "liberal" media soaks in a little more. Those will be the ones that will really show the effect.
Crabmaster threw down the gauntlet over on Kevin's blog that I haven't made any predictions because I'm (gasp!, sniffle sniffle) scared that I will be wrong. So, I have decided that on Monday I will predict how the rest of the primary season will play out.
I'd like to see what the polls show later in the week after the 24-7 news coverage of the comments by the "liberal" media soaks in a little more. Those will be the ones that will really show the effect.
Crabmaster threw down the gauntlet over on Kevin's blog that I haven't made any predictions because I'm (gasp!, sniffle sniffle) scared that I will be wrong. So, I have decided that on Monday I will predict how the rest of the primary season will play out.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Nice Quote
I don't read the Huffington Post often but this one caught my attention:
By cynically twisting Obama's comments about small town voters in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party, Hillary Clinton has adopted the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth. The question is, if she succeeds, what kind of Party will she be left to lead? She's burning down the village to save it -- or to prove that she would make the best fire chief. But the village won't be saved; only one house will be left standing. A house with room for just two occupants: Hill and Bill.
By cynically twisting Obama's comments about small town voters in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party, Hillary Clinton has adopted the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth. The question is, if she succeeds, what kind of Party will she be left to lead? She's burning down the village to save it -- or to prove that she would make the best fire chief. But the village won't be saved; only one house will be left standing. A house with room for just two occupants: Hill and Bill.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
We Don't Deserve It
About two weeks ago, Senator Obama was on Hardball and told the audience that he believed that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. There was little or no reaction to this comment, the "liberal" media did not cover it wall to wall for two days, and the gay community did not go ape shit. In addition, there was no faux concern over Obama's electability.But in this day and age, when you make a comment like this:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow those communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising to me then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment as to way to explain their frustrations."
well, you are God Damned all to hell!!
And Tinkerbell's light goes out and she dies.
Because as all good Americans know when you make any kind of remark that even is slightly negative about guns or religion (even if it is true), you are the pure embodiment of evil and are against all that is wholesome and good. One need only look at fellow blogger Kevin Baker's site to see the all too predictable reaction. I wonder if any of them will compare the reaction of Senator Obama's comments on gay marriage with the most recent ones and see a difference.
Probably not.
Anyway, I think when you look at the reaction to his statement on small towns, it becomes quite obvious that it is accurate. This reaction is typical of the "rock granite" stubborn refusal of some people to look at who is actually fucking them over and continually blame the "other" which, ironically, is what Obama is describing. It's a distraction from the serious issues of the day and it puts energy into something that will ultimately solve no problems--which works out perfectly for the people (Bush, Cheney and pundit machine) who supposedly are on their side. The people they should really be pissed off at are laughing all the way to the bank.....the people that have manipulated their bitterness and their honesty into votes.
Some people that post here lament long and hard about how liberals are "sheeple" who follow along with whatever their side says. To a certain extent and with certain liberals, this is true. However, the art of getting people to become sheeple has never been more perfected than it has with the "stupid rednecks in flyover country who believe in God, guns and country, " as Kevin describes on his blog. This recent flap is an excellent example.
It illustrates how the "fake outrage machine" works in this country. A bunch of people will now get angry at Obama for being "condescending" or the terribly false belief that he actually looks at people as Kevin says he does So, by all means, let's continue to debate, ad nauseaum, how Senator Obama is an "elitist" or a hater of Meanwhile, Bush Co will dance with glee as it continues to pull several layers of wool over millions of eyes and the real problems out there...the ones that Senator Obama is best equipped to face....continue to get worse.
A while back, a friend of mine told me that she didn't think we were ready for BarackObama..that our country was too petty and stupid to want a real leader who would actually take this country to the next level. If this bullshit continues on into next week, I fear she might be right. In which case, we deserve people like John McCain or Hillary Clinton, who most assuredly will be business as usual and definitely make the majority of our country's problems even worse.
Perhaps now is not the time for change because I'm not sure if we deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)