Ignorant Bloggers, Shut the Hell up! I can handle my own biz...I got my shit on lock
The one thing that I have learned in blogging is that it really isn’t much different than the print media. Everyone is trying to break a new story and then proclaim that they are the one to listen to. Here is a snippet of a story posted at the New Agenda yesterday
But as Hillary’s poll numbers continued to rise, something rather strange started to unfold: Hillary went missing. She gradually became less and less of the spokesperson that our country so surely needed on international issues. There was barely an utterance of her name in the media as President Obama and Vice President Biden trekked around the globe working on international affairs. Until finally last week the blogosphere started to ask: Where’s Hillary?
Now, the blogosphere that you are talking about it is a story that YOU wrote last week that was baseless in merit. The commenters on the story pointed out how 1) Hillary had surgery on a broken elbow when you were crying about her presence
Here is your health lesson for today. Forget looking for Waldo, where the humerus? Oh yeah, it's your blogs...
Since she slipped and broke her elbow last month, Clinton has been forced out of the limelight, canceling two foreign trips and undergoing intense physical therapy.
and 2) a simple check of her calendar on the website would have sufficed to figure out where she was and what she was doing. Stay classy with the writing…
But, because of a story that people attempted to make a self-fulfilling prophecy, Hillary actually came out and answered your absurd post, designed to agitate for agitation sake
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday rejected suggestions she had been sidelined by President Barack Obama, her rival for last year’s Democratic presidential nomination.
With media reports swirling that Clinton’s influence has been usurped by the National Security Council, the top U.S. diplomat insisted she played an important role in crafting the foreign policy agenda.
“I really stay focused on the work that I do. I broke my elbow, not my larynx. I have been deeply involved in the shaping and implementation of our foreign policy,” she told reporters.
“I don’t really pay a lot of attention to what is said,” Clinton said of several commentaries speculating she was being sidelined.
So here is the thing. You really can’t have it both ways. Should we look up to Hillary Clinton for the tremendous strides that she has made, (and will continue to make) or should we look down upon her because she has allowed herself to be used by the big bad Barack Obama for a tool of his worldwide plan for domination?
I want Hillary to be worried about her work and not about what view you think that she should be making. She is doing her job and I commend her for it. She is damned if she does respond to the alligations, since I bet the next story is how Obama MADE her come out and say those things because he is the great puppetmaster.
If she doesn’t respond to the silly allegations, then you would hold it up as a sign that the President is holding her hostage for some yet to be named nefarious plan. I wonder if you are going to talk about this, New Agenda? This seems to be right up your alley. Obama appoints a woman for Surgeon General. You spent three sentences on this, a real story, and over a thousand words on a story that isn’t one. Maybe that is why the movement isn’t moving in the right direction….just a thought.
Now, lets play a simple game. In this game, the public is going to choose who they should listen to and trust for information. The public can listen to you, someone who is looking for trouble where trouble doesn’t exist, a columnist for the Post editorial section, or an actual foreign policy expert.
Hopefully, you don't need to buy a vowel and you can tell Pat what the answer is...
Forgive me for choosing someone who has actually served in a political role within the Government…
Foreign policy expert Ned Walker, a former ambassador to Israel and Egypt, said it was too soon to judge whether Clinton was being excluded from major foreign policy decisions.
NATURAL RIVALRY
Walker said there was a natural rivalry between the State Department and the National Security Council particularly in the early months of a new presidency.
“Their physical proximity to the president naturally gives the NSC a boost,” said Walker. “It is way too early to count her out.”
You just want a rift to complain to hear your own voice. Why are you advocating for someone who can speak for herself just fine? She has done so when she has felt attacked…she is a grown woman who has the skills to defend for herself.
For its part, the White House rejects suggestions that Clinton is not a major player or that Obama is not listening to the one-time frontrunner he beat in the Democratic Party’s presidential race last year.
“They enjoy a very close relationship. I think the Secretary of State is somebody who the president relies on greatly,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
“The notion that there’s some rift or disagreement is nothing more than silly Washington games,” he added.
Clinton leaves for a weeklong trip to India and Thailand on Thursday and she listed other events in the coming weeks, including meetings in Washington with top Chinese officials and a planned visit to Africa in early August.
“I think I will just do the work and make the contribution,” she said. “I feel very honored and positive about my working relationship with the White House and in my personal relationship with President Obama.”
See, you go girl…Let your work do the talking…
Reading Rumproast this morning, they point to the Betty Cracker posts on the same subject. The New York Times, who Betty quotes in her piece, seems to even be more on point (if that is possible) than my quotes…
Mrs. Clinton is said by her aides to brush off the scuttlebutt about her low profile. They note that she kept her head down early in her Senate career, too.
She professes to be amused, if baffled, by a recent column on the blog Daily Beast in which Tina Brown wrote, “It’s time for Barack Obama to let Hillary Clinton take off her burqa.”
Other foreign affairs experts say the doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s role reflect an unrealistic view of the job of secretary of state, particularly in an era when the White House usually drives foreign policy.
“There’s a reflex assumption on the part of a lot of people that the secretary of state is going to be out there, on every conceivable issue,” said Strobe Talbott, a deputy secretary of state under President Clinton.
After all this, it just baffles me how the New Agenda can keep writing about her low profile. It seems as though she really is giving you and your story the finger.
This is what Dave Letterman is:
He uses this in his daily course of work
- S: (n) sarcasm, irony, satire, caustic remark (witty language used to convey insults or scorn) “he used sarcasm to upset his opponent”; “irony is wasted on the stupid”; “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own”–Jonathan Swift
WOW… the amount of outrage from the blogosphere about David Letterman and some of his comedy routine recently has got me thinking…”Really?” You are up in arms about some jokes? Some of the people that are outraged are the same people who make jokes all the time. One of the resident frontpagers makes similar “sexist” comments. When is a joke just a joke? That’s right, when you can generate faux outrage about it with others. Here is what he said, and some commentary from Kevin over at Rumproast.
That said, I did find yet another example of myiq2xu behaving like a vulgar misogynist and, in this case, applying the “it was just a joke” defense is going to be virtually impossible. Less than two years ago Balloon Juice’s John Cole posted the much-snickered-about video of Miss Teen South Carolina Caitlin Upton severely bungling a response to a question about why so few Americans can find the U.S. on a world map. Here’s what myiq2xu, the shameless hypocrite who specializes in kneejerk branding of his opponents as misogynists and sexists, wrote about this innocent nineteen-year-old woman at the time:
myiq2xu August 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Just stare at her boobs and don’t pay any attention to what she says. If she talks too much put something in her mouth.
She needs to marry a rocket scientist so her kids will be half-wits.
And then, believe it or not, it got worse:
Andrew August 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Her reoccurring use of “such as” is a result of a dialog coach training her out of rampant use of the word “like”. They instruct kids to substitute “such as” for “like”. She must not have had this coaching trick for very long.
Do they use an electro-shock collar for this conditioning process?myiq2xu August 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Do they use an electro-shock collar for this conditioning process?
They hit her in the back of the throat with the meat prod.
So, I went over to the Confluence to do my daily reading and I look to see that the thing that has people up in arms is the fact that David Letterman made some jokes, and they were none to happy with him. My1/2IQ is on his feminist soapbox about what an outrage we all should be feeling. I think the same thing when I look at your comments then. Why are more people not outraged at you? The reason that they will give is that they KNOW you are not that way. Considering none of us really know Obama, then how can you call him a sexist from very tiny sound bites?
I went to a Conservative source, to get what they thought of the skit. So, I went over to the Examiner and here is what they had to say about the whole thing.
I don’t agree with Letterman’s point of view, but I agree wholeheartedly with what he does. I wish we had more people mocking government leaders. I wish we had even more people mocking government. The result of government intervention in civil society is hilarious, as long as it is mostly theoretical.
Now, what the feminists at the Confluence, Hillbuzz, and others want you to do is protest the sexism of the comedian. Their argument is that they want to tear down a woman, regardless of what side they sit, since they have scary woman parts. Funny, but this person continues with something that they would totally agree with…
When people get the idea that politicians are something other than a mockery to real human beings, and that politicians can really help them, we get screwed. When people aren’t reminded that government is nothing more than a perpetual failure to be avoided whenever possible, we get things like Medicare, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Barack Obama. We need less mocking of government and its leaders like we need more self-righteous moral indignation. Enough already.
See, that’s a joke. He throw Obama under there of things that he dislikes and you keep moving on. He even had a funny picture of Obama. I looked, thought it was kinda silly and moved on. People will say that how do you move on from sexism on TV like this? The same way you kept it moving when you saw your boy halfwit IQ make his sexist remarks.
I laughed at most of his list. Laughing beats the hell out of self-righteousness, is more productive, and makes you look less like a weenie.
Now, I am sure that they will cry sexism over the use of weenie, but who really cares? Maybe they missed the part about Letterman being the host of the Late Show, which is a place for comedy and interviews. I bet if Sarah gets another shot at the White House, I bet that she will be trolling the late shows to get some free face time.
Letterman did what he does. He ridicules everything except liberalism and its practitioners. That’s his job, and he’s made a good, long career off it. And this was Letterman at his tamest. Only one line, the “slutty flight attendant” quip, would likely be considered offensive to Palin herself. Now I love Palin, I think she’s exactly what the Republican Party needs, and I laughed most at that line.
Comics are a lost, and treasured art form and I hope that CBS doesn’t kowtow to a small group of liberals that did not find the jokes funny about Sarah Palin and her daughter. The one thing about comedy is that you should never have to apologize about making a JOKE. If it is not funny, don’t laugh. But, comedians are supposed to push the edge. Even if you think that they have gone over it, they have not.
This is like playing the dozens or making momma jokes. We know that they are not true, but its a game of verbal brinksmanship, designed to cause the other to quit. It’s a battle of wits and quickness, similar to freestyle battles.
It’s an art form that you wouldn’t understand. It doesn’t always work, but you go where the beat takes you.
Plus, where was this outrage when you were ripping Michelle Obama to shreads?
angienc, on December 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am Said: Delphyne:
And that ring – it resembles one that is given to the NFL super bowl winners.
Well, honestly, ME Chelle is about the size of an NFL linebacker, so there ya go.
was that too mean?
If we were to talk about Hillary like that, then we would be the worst people on earth? Here is an average NFL linebacker. This is DeMarcus Ware of the Dallas Cowboys and his child.
Dallas Cowboy's Linebacker Demarcus Ware,25, and his wife Taniqua,26, have finally become parents after 3 failed pregnancies. They finally adopted to start their family and as a Cowboy fan, congrats!
Here is a picture of Michelle Obama
prettier than you Angie in NC...You have that distinct Skeletal/Skeletor look to you in your avatar...jk, jk, since it's all about the jokes right?
But, we get it, it’s snark they will say. We are just pissed by the fact our choice was not elected and we feel that by running the better campaign, President Obama stole the election from us and our time to shine! We get it… He stole Democracy away from you and you want it back.
Here is what another frontpager said about the Michelle Things…
dakinikat, on December 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am Said: I think the entire jewerly thing shows a level of shallowness benefitting a hollywood diva, but frankly, i think that some of these personal attacks on Michelle are reminding me of the ones on Palin and Hillary …
can’t we just leave it as it showing a high level of insensitivity on the part of a role model to go bling shopping during the worst recession since the 80s? It strikes me similar to what George H Bush did when he was clueless in the grocery store …
But it doesn’t stop there…that is the real lone voice of dissent. It is similar and either you have to be mad and vigilant ALL THE TIME or remain quiet and surrender the OUTRAGE card. Here is one more comment on the subject
catarina, on December 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 am Said: I apologize for nothing.
This King and Queen stuff is a slap in the face to the American people.
And as a self-proclaimed fashionista MO has sucky taste.
She is ugly and hard to look at b/c her insides are ugly.
This can apply to men too.
Everyone probably knows someone who could me attractive but anger or meanness has found it’s way to the exterior.Ok I admit I have the flu and may be babbling deliriously.
But MO as first lady is just too much.
So why should Obama/Favreau/Letterman have to apologize if PUMAS and other so called “feminists” don’t??? So, snark is only for the non-famous bloggers to use against political candidates and their partners?
UPDATE The halfwit doesn’t understand….
The clown doesn’t understand why his previous comments that he apologized for doesn’t end there. To understand, when does it end for Jon Favreau?
An Obama spokesman says Favreau has apologized to the former first lady, who gave Obama a run for his massive piles of money during the Democratic primaries.
The transition official said Favreau has “reached out to Sen. Clinton to offer an apology,” an unfortunate choice of words under the photographic circumstances, as the Swamp’s Frank James points out in his item.
So, Jon reaches out and apologizes and he is still the subject of debate and discussion.
That is why halfwit. You put him in the detention cell of sexism, he apologizes and you don’t let him out. You make some comments about Ms. South Carolina, offer a mea culpa and then become the biggest feminist? The fact that you are having this conversation and justification is the reason you are a hypocrite on the subject.
myiq2xu, on June 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm Said: I made those comments when I was still a regular at Baloney Juice. If I was a Failbot I could still be there telling sexist and misogynist jokes all day every day and they not only wouldn’t complain, they would laugh their asses off.
Then a commenter JUSTIFIES their sexism
meeee2, on June 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm Said: I really can’t stand sexism, but the Ms Teen South Carolina contestant was just begging for jokes after the answer she gave. I laughed loudly at the comments you made. There are some arenas where women need to be very careful if they don’t want to be made fun of….men, too…the big dumb football players come to mind.
Hate will make you do crazy things. Getting up to the level of hate is a tremendous task. PUMAS and their offspring have done that. Their blind alliance to everything NOT Obama is fascinating as a case study. If President Obama says that it’s Tuesday, June 2nd, they will either claim that he magically and mysteriously fixed the time (with his bat-phone to God) or that he paid someone off to make it so.
Now, I told you that I read the Confluence, because it makes a good read in the morning to give me something to write about immediately upon sitting at the keyboard. Today, as I was reading through and scanning the comments, I was struck by one of the links about GM. As I read the original WSJ link, I remembered reading a bunch of sky is falling, look what Obama did type comments, so I went back and researched and found one in particular, that was interesting, because the person has a Phd…
bostonboomer, on May 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm Said: This is horrible. This whole situation is just killing Indiana. I spent my whole life until adulthood in very small towns. Some of the richest people in the town I grew up in Indiana were the car dealers. It makes me sick that Obama is destroying what is left of this country when we had so much hope that we could reverse the damage Bush did. Obama is worse than Bush ever was.
I don’t know if this country can be saved now. We are headed for tyranny. I never really believed Bush would leave, then it seemed he would, but now we have someone who wants those dictatorial powers so much more than Bush did. I’m crying for my country tonight. Our economy is destroyed and our government is run by torturers, murderers, and thieves.
Now, the article is in regards to the auto industry and how that is hurting small towns. The author waxes poetically about how things used to be. Coupled with the comments, lets just blame Obama for this.
Obama caused the bird flu as well...
But, then a funny thing happened on the way to the keyboard. The economy is starting to show signs of light amid the darkness that has been hovering around.
The GM mess, which wasn’t Obama’s in the first place has been managed pretty well. The PUMAS usually say that HRC or JMac would have handled it better, but how would they? And more importantly how do you know without wither being in the situation or doling out a position on the issue? When looking at the future and the past of GM, this author claims that the issue was a pre-existing mess and that the President has done a good job.
When looking at quals, who do you trust? That is going to be the big issue in evaluation of the truth. Today, lets quote Mr. Paul Ingrassia in the WSJ. You might wonder what he has done. Well, he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993 for covering the last crisis at GM. I think that he probably has a better understanding of the situation at hand than commentors or frontpagers.
This fate could have been avoided with better foresight and less hubris, but by 18 months ago bankruptcy was inevitable. GM’s U.S. market share had declined to 22% from 52% in the early 1960s. There were too many brands, too much debt, a cumbersome union contract as big as a phone book, and an enormous dealer network built for the glory years of yesterday instead of the market share of today.
The question for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama was whether to stand by and watch, or instead to use the public purse to shape the bankruptcies of both Chrysler and GM to mitigate the damage to a shaky U.S. economy. They intervened, which was the unpleasant but correct decision.
By and large, Mr. Obama’s automotive task force has done its job pretty well, forcing the companies and the UAW to make difficult decisions that they should have made themselves long ago. GM will shed four of its eight U.S. brands — Saab, Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer — thousands of dealers, 11 factories, and much of its debt. It is no small irony that a Democratic administration brought in a bunch of private-equity types to impose rational management on big business.
So, Obama made the corect decision, and has managed to execute the plan pretty well. But, let’s see the left couldn’t write about that, because it doesn’t fit within their playbook of “ignore reality and focus only on the mistakes.” You can focus on the mistakes, but have the ability to be self reflective about what you wrote and what you said.
It’s not all peaches and cream and he states that we are not out of the woods yet.
That said, a couple of aspects of the GM and Chrysler bailouts could come back to haunt U.S. taxpayers and the Obama administration.
The company that controls Chrysler, Italy’s Fiat, is getting a special government incentive — a potential increase in its Chrysler ownership stake — to build a small car in America that will get 40 miles per gallon. General Motors made a similar decision to build a high-mileage small car in the U.S. of its own accord, but certainly with an eye toward current political “realities.”
Both moves fit the green agenda of Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats. They’re also egregious examples of mission creep. GM and Chrysler should get just one marching order from the government: Earn enough money so taxpayers will recover as much as their investment as possible. If the new small cars flop because gas prices drop, the result will be more losses and, potentially, Bailout II.
The other questionable call is the government’s big ownership stake in both companies — 60% of General Motors and a much smaller share of Chrysler. The rationale is reasonable. The government is providing the $50 billion of financing needed to restructure GM so taxpayers might as well get something for their money. But this relegates unsecured lenders to the back of the line behind the government and the union. More worrisome, it invokes the question famously asked before the U.S. invasion of Iraq: You can go in, but can you get out?
What they (PUMAS and other random assorted haters and Republicans) will state is that we will never be able to get out of the quagmire that is GM. We should wait and see if that will be the case, but to the ending point of BB comment above is that Obama does care and made the one move to gamble on ingenuity and hard work of American autoworkers. The one BIG issue that the romanticists fail to point out is that this is largely an issue that they created. The UAW deserves its share of the blame for the problem as well. This is one of the reasons that they stuck for…
Decades of dumb decisions helped send General Motors to a bankruptcy court yesterday, but one stands out.
The year was 1998, and the United Auto Workers was striking at two factories in Flint, Mich., that made components critical to every GM assembly plant in the country. The union was defending production quotas that workers could fill in five or six hours, after which they would get overtime pay or just, you know, go home.
What about working your eight hour shift and then going home? Or what about you taking pay for 6 hours? I mean, YES, would I want to get paid for eight hours and only have to work six? ABSOL freakin LUTELY! But, realize the external pressures that puts on the rest of the biosphere. I am sincerely hoping that the NFL and the NFLPA recognize that and don’t do anything to jeopardize what is a 7-10 billion dollar a year industry that I get great pleasure from watching every Sunday.
(not my favorite musical accompaniment, but I support the Silver and Black)
I think that you can figure out the winners
That losing is hard and losers don’t take stock in their shortcomings…
That sounds harsh, and looking back at what I typed, without some context, you would think that might be somewhat misplaced. But, as a former debate type, I come with evidence of my claims.
1) McCain support.
Some of the PUMA factions loved up John McCain, after Hillary dropped out of the race. John McCain’s sacrifices are admirable for the country, and should not be forgotten. But, as the leader of the country, I would defeintely stop short before giving him the keys to the car. But, some PUMA supporters STRONGLY PUSHED FOR HIS ELECTION.
Pat Johnson, on January 1st, 2009 at 11:05 am Said:
Most of us Dems voted McCain/Palin in protest. This was something new to the party who expected “unity” no matter what or who the candidate was or offered. This is what set us apart. We never gave in.
What you fail to realize is that not only is that NOT a protest vote, you do actually what John points out here...
Fortunately, the one who makes the biggest stink isn’t the one who wins. Just because you have a cult like belief, doesn’t make your religion the right one for everyone.
What leader would urge you to protest your vote (something that they faught long and hard for the right for all of us to do so) to vote for the side that has done the least for your cause, historically and recently?
Politico talks about the boost that McCain received from Palin nomination.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has electrified conservative activists, providing a boost of energy to the GOP nominee-in-waiting from a key constituency that previously had been lukewarm — at best — about him.
By tapping the anti-abortion and pro-gun Alaska governor just ahead of his convention, which is set to start here Monday, McCain hasn’t just won approval from a skeptical Republican base — he’s ignited a wave of elation and emotion that has led some grass-roots activists to weep with joy.
Now, dont you feel a little suspoicious about the pick? Are you so blinded about the choice that you fail to see why the choice was made? This had all feeling of a choice of conveinence and political gain. Kudos to McCain for attempting to get elected, but chosing him was a vote designed to punish your opponent. Again, for PUMAS, they live the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend…” to the fullest.
Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen. Without these two camps making phone calls, stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors, Republican presidential candidates would severely lack for volunteers. They are critical to the health of the conservative coalition that has dominated Republican politics for a generation.
Republicans say the primary source for the passion can be found in Palin’s example and authenticity.
Not only is the 44-year-old governor opposed to abortion rights — but she carried and gave birth to a child with Down syndrome earlier this year, a profound and powerful motivating force to both opponents of abortion rights and the parents and relatives of special needs children.
Even if you think that Obama has not done all he can to get to abortion, the right wingers won with the murder of Dr. Tiller. Your reproduction rights would not have been safe.
Anti-Abortion forces win, with this murder, but isn't this (murder) what they are supposed to be against?
Here was McCain on Abortion from Time
McCain’s straightforward answer, along with his assertion that he would not have nominated any of the Supreme Court’s four liberal judges (notwithstanding that he voted to confirm all but John Paul Stevens, who was named before McCain was in the Senate), had social conservatives breathing sighs of relief. “I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” McCain said to cheers from the audience.
So, even if you think that Obama is not pro-choice enough, he is more than McCain. But, the usual story of Hillary supporters who voted for McCain make the argument that the candidate supported their views. That is a difficult one to reconcile.
2) Random Obama Hatred
Yes, he beat your choice. That happens all the time. But, this was the year that a small and vocal crowd never let up with their belief their candidate was the best one for the job and that she really won. I really would have respected a write in campaign for her, and allowed that to be the measuring stick of her power. Now, that the election is over, you don’t need to hate. Hate the ballot measures, no need to hate the man. You can go to any random post at the Confluence or other PUMA affliated sites and STILL see the pain that they face with Obama winning. They take the slogan hate the player not the game to a new level.
Sophie, on June 1st, 2009 at 7:46 am Said: The infatuation matters because Obama’s ambitions are so grand.
If only. I’m still reeling from yesterday, its history and significance. This last year has been the worst of my life and I lay it squarely at the feet of whoever this puppet master is. There really is no where for me to go politically in America. I disagree with the Republicans on 98% of the issues and I think the Democrats are too stupid to vote or govern their way out of a paper bag.Regency, on May 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm Said: I thought I was crazy for still grieving over this day. I know now that I’m not. I keep feeling robbed and it’s just hard to even see the words “President Obama” knowing that the ending should have been very different. This was the turning point if there ever was one.
Just replace Star Trek with PUMA Convention and you get the idea...
Did the message get through? Well, consider this: people who voted early went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama; those who made up their minds during the three days after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton.
For more than a century, American politicians have played on racial fears to divide the electorate and mobilize xenophobic parties. Blacks have been the “domestic enemy,” the eternal outsider within, who could always inspire unity among “we whites.” Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy was built on this premise, using coded language — “law and order,” “silent majority” — to destroy the alliance between blacks and white labor that had been the foundation of the Democratic Party, and to bring about the Republican ascendancy of the past several decades. The Willie Horton ad that George H. W. Bush used against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a crude manifestation of this strategy — as was the racist attack used against John McCain’s daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000.
It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.
It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.
bostonboomer, on May 5th, 2009 at 7:24 am Said: I think you’re right about the people who are using reaction formation as a defense. Many Obots voted for Obama *because* he is part African American and his skin is light brown, in order to assuage their own guilt and fear. Some of us were actually able to look at Obama’s past history and his stated policies instead of the color of his skin.Defense mechanisms are entirely unconscious, and that makes it very difficult for people to see their own behaviors and their consequences. The over-the-top reactions are the key. Overreaction that can easily be seen by others is typical of reaction formation.
Of course these Obots are also using projection–seeing their own extreme emotions in others.
The arguments being raised about Mr. Obama’s blackness — or his lack of blackness — seem positively antique at a time when Americans are moving away from the view of ancestry as a central demographic fact and toward a view that dispenses with those traditional boundaries. Even so, the complaints about Mr. Obama provide an interesting opportunity to examine the passing of the old and the rise of the new.
The claim that the candidate isn’t really black because his mother is white carries little weight under either system. It makes no sense at all to the young Americans who checked more than one box when identifying themselves by race in the last census. They subscribe to a fluid notion of race and seem perfectly willing to let people describe themselves racially any way they choose.
Nor does the charge make sense in the black community itself. That community has historically and eagerly embraced as black anyone and everyone with any African ancestry to speak of. That embrace often included interracial families, who lived in black communities long before they were accepted elsewhere. It included even blue-eyed, sandy-haired people like the civil rights leader Walter White, whose black ancestry was imperceptible to the naked eye.
The carpetbagging black Republican Alan Keyes opened up this racialist can of worms when he opposed Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate race back in 2004. Badly outmatched and reaching for any brick he could find, Mr. Keyes blurted out that Mr. Obama was not black because he was not descended from slaves. The Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch later seemed to second that view, saying that Mr. Obama had not “lived the life of a black American.”
His critics are at least right when they describe his journey as a departure from the customary stereotype. But they are fundamentally wrong when they try to argue that the journey described in his affecting 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” is somehow incompatible with blackness.
At bottom, the hue and cry over Barack Obama’s identity stems from a failure by black traditionalists to recognize multiracial versions of themselves. Soon enough, perhaps by year’s end, however, the Obama story, which seems so exotic to so many people now, will have found its place among all the other stories of the sprawling black diaspora.
Joanelle, on October 31st, 2008 at 10:43 am Said: Oh, boy, I went to an awards dinner last night and ended up being invited to sit at the “reserved” table (head table) but when I sat I found that five out of the seven of us were Obots – who carefully assured us all that Obama will be elected next week so we had nothing to worry about. The other three of us just sat there and smiled – mainly because we knew they were wrong but didn’t want to ruin their meal.
You MEANT that you HOPED that they were wrong, but they ended up being right.
The Prologue: Where do they go from here?
If I was the Confluence, I would stop the label of PUMA. It was a funny, off the cuff quip that has lost its flavor like a piece of gum that that has been chewed for an hour. It’s stale and the rhetoric is stale around the Confluence house. Change the diapers of the baby!
You have some things that are defientely worth saving. Most of the people there are not ignorant, in fact they are mostly very bright individuals who are so tied up into their cause, they reject others with ad-homs. Gotta build bridges, not continue to build trenches around your position. If you have beliefes, don’t shy away from debate.
The tradition in the blog-o-sphere is to aviod debate and limit discussion of various topics if they are opposite than yours. It should be exaclty the opposite. If someone has a different view, invite them to debate. Facts will stand at the end of the debate. You should never feel the need to ban discussion or commentors unless they can only go to ad-homs, which some frontpagers are great at. (You know who…lol)
Here is what I am going to do…you should too…
Why the PUMA movement will fail…
May 29, 2009
In Exodus, Chapter 23:22, it is said, “I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you.“[2]
The simple reason is that they have a remarkable inability to remain consistent in their support of things they like and don’t like.
Since we are on a Clinton wave of posting and re-editing the past, I thought that it was remarkably funny reading this one poster.
Fran, on May 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm Said:
I was busy just now, finding the link for this…..
Jonthan Turley, who is a Professor of Law at George Washington University, said, recently, that the Obama administration was becoming the greatest bait and switch in history. And, this was on MSNBC!
(Youtube video not posted by me)
They say that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. But, is that really true? Lets look a little deeper at Jonathan Turley. Here is the link to his blog on a subject that most PUMAS pretend didn’t happen.
CONCLUSION
Summary: Any impeachment decision is obviously political in the sense that it is being made by political figures based on their view of the public interest. This does not mean, however, that the methodology and standards are political. Each member will have to reach a principled decision as to the conduct of this President. I hope that the members consider the value of the constitutional process in place for such a divisive national issue. The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well o f the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president…(emphasis added)
PREPARED STATEMENT
Jonathan Turley
Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
See, the difference is that Barack Obama has time to continue to fulfill campaign promises. For President Clinton, history has written your entry. For once, wait until the play/show is over before you attempt to critique what happened. For me, the enemy of my enemy is someone random person who hasn’t done anything to me yet.
And they make fun of Rachel Maddow as well, but they can’t help to run to her when it suits their need to try to dent Obama’s armor. Here is a classic post from Riverdaughter herself speaking about Rachel Maddow AND Obama
- On the other hand, Obama will never be able to relax as long as the Big Dawg is out there. But getting back to stupidity. The Clinton campaign has NOT been playing the race card for one simple reason- Hillary can’t win black voters by doing it. Accusing them of doing it has been very successful but it doesn’t parse logically. As for the Jesse Jackson statement, just because something is true doesn’t mean it was meant to be racist. Obama was always going to be favored in South Carolina. He pulled out all of the stops and spent a lot of money there which meant that Hillary had to campaign there as well in a state she was guaranteed to lose the minute Obama announced his candidacy. But that’s because it was South Carolina. And anyone can see that Obama is an intelligent, charismatic candidate. The state that started to put things in perspective is Florida because there was little campaigning done there, the population is quite diverse and it appears that experience *does* matter. But, whatever. I just hope that when this is all over that Obama makes amends for driving a wedge into the heart of the party.
There is plenty of visual evidence that the Obama campaign is making its stand in black neighborhoods. The borough of Somerville which has a diverse population in the midst of the mostly white and asian central NJ suburbs is festooned with Obama signs. Oh, Hell, I actually like Obama, OK? I said it. I will work like a fanatic for him if he’s the nominee. But I want the best qualified person to be in the WH in Jan, 2009 because it’s going to be so bad that even the best will be over her head.- I have to agree with Digby on MSNBC’s coverage of the Florida primary last night. I had to turn Countdown’s coverage off, last night. That’s how bad it’s become. The anti-Clinton theme fairly jumps off the screen. And not just from Tweety. Plus, they’ve relegated Norah “Betty Crocker” O’Donnell to standing in front of a scoreboard distracting us with weird catalog model hand positions. (Do models and women broadcasters take lessons in that subject?) And I don’t even like Noron but I don’t like to see women subjected to silly Vanna White status. Can’t you make her wear a nice pantsuit so she can stick her hand in one pocket while she gesticulates with the other to make her point? Better to just replace her altogether with another Rachel Maddow and let Tweety stand at the scoreboard with nothing much to say. C’mon, guys, do you have to be so obvious? If you’re going to turn into another outpost of DailyKos Obama delirium, I’m going to start hanging out at CNN more. Think about that, KO, Anderson Cooper will be stealing your mojo. Anderson COOPER. (again, emphasis added by me)
We knew that wasn’t going to be true, but that’s the power of the internet. What you write can come back to haunt you…Or at least your “new” friend can come back and stab you in the back…
Doing my morning reading at the Confluence got me chuckling. Counting down the days until I give my History final, I began to put a recent post at the Confluence into context.
The quote “History writes itself” is running through my head looking at another Chicken Little, the sky is falling and Obama is asleep at the wheel posts. Reading Stateofdisbelief, they find themselves in a nightmare that they are unable to wake up from. But, the sad state of affairs is that it’s reality and while they attempt to tell you its raining, its really someone pissing on your head…or your computer
I Try…I Really Do
Posted on May 28, 2009 by Stateofdisbelief http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/i-try-i-really-do/
Now, if you think that’s bad you should see what they cut from that video. Apparently POTUS, sans TOTUS, proclaimed himself to be the bestus presidentus EVAH “since FDR.”
“I would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR,” Obama said. “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we don’t shrink from them either.”
Now, I can take a lot of crap but hearing him fawn all over himself and declare that he is better than Bill Clinton is more than I can stand. I honestly think blood poured out of my eyes and ears when I saw that. Who the hell??? what the hell?? Jeebuscripes on a cracker! And the fucking crowd goes wild???
Now, before you get the wrong idea, Bill Clinton was a good president. But, this is EXACTLY the PROBLEM WITH PUMAS. They take things COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, so that they can have some hidden rhetorical high ground for hating that Hillary lost.
Here are some of the things wrong with this persons rant.
1) IT’S A HOLLYWOOD FUNDRAISER. There is always some hyperbole in a fundraiser. Yes, you are speaking to your base, asking them to go into their pockets FOR OTHER DEMOCRATS!
Kris Alingod – AHN ContributorLos Angeles, CA (AHN) – President Barack Obama drew more than 200 Hollywood celebrities to a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Wednesday night, saying his presidency would not have been possible without them and giving assurances about his accomplishments in his first months in office.
Read more: “Obama Raises $4 Million At Hollywood Fundraiser | AHN | May 29, 2009″ – http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015300849#ixzz0GuT9FK5J&A
But, if you want to measure, Greenburg has laid out Clintons first 100 days
By 1992 Bill Clinton was promising during his campaign, “I’ll have the bills ready the day after I’m inaugurated, I’ll send them to Congress, and we’ll have a hundred-day period. It will be the most productive period in modern history.” The boast proved impossible to fulfill. A few important measures such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act followed, but nothing Rooseveltian.
But, Greenburg also critiques the Obama administration
With April 30 looming, he has managed, to his credit, to pass a stimulus bill (albeit through rougher waters than he hoped), roll out a banking-crisis fix (with fewer details than Wall Street hoped) and propose a mortgage solution (with less money than everyone hoped). He’s signed a few ballpoint-ready Democratic bills like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and issued executive orders closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and overturning the anti-abortion “gag rule” for family-planning centers overseas.A lot of people are still expecting more. In his speech before Congress last month, Obama promised initiatives to tap new sources of domestic energy, contain global warming, invest in education and toughen financial regulations — not to mention the rather large matter of health-care reform. The hundred days is surely, as historian Arthur Schlesinger once said, a “trap.”
The trap that Schlesinger talks about proves the power of clairvoyance. The PUMAS fall right into the category. Nothing that Obama is going to do will satisfy them. Everything is wrong and purposefully done to make their lives as miserable as possible. Even the appointments of Hillary to SOS and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court have some hidden agenda behind them.
3) If you want to walk down memory lane, there are some doozies in the first hundred days of Clinton
Exhibit A. Attorney Generalgate Dr. Bill Long (quals there…) explains the issues
Clinton’s first big mistake was his inability to find an attorney general. He wanted a woman for the post (actually, he tried, and largely succeeded, in making his Cabinet reflective of the diversity of America), and so it seemed that he would first run through every woman who hired illegal immigrants to watch her kids before finding one that didn’t. Finally, on Feb. 11, he had a “live one,” to quote his chief of staff, in Jane Reno. But she wasn’t confirmed until March 11, well after a big problem had broken out (more about that below). But his repeated failures in getting an AG made Clinton seem to be an amiable, if not misguided, boob.
Ouch! He went there. But, that is the image that most PUMAS like to remember, the homespun charm and everyman quality. But, in terms of policy successes and failures, that was a major one. That had the feeling of incompetence to it.
Exhibit B GAYS IN THE MILITARY
This is one of the bigger complaints that PUMAS have about the Obama presidency is that he hasn’t eliminated this standard. But, lest we forget, how did the standard come about? CLINTON! You know, one of their own? Dr. Long continues…
The second “mistake” was in being distracted with his “gays in the military” issue. Clinton isn’t very clear on all the dynamics of why that issue came to the fore when it did, but he says that on January 25, five days after he took the oath of office, the Joint Chiefs requested an “urgent” meeting with him about the issue. He doesn’t say if this was a response to something he had already set in motion or was simply to vent some concerns they had about what he would do. From the gaps in Clinton’s account, it could have been a sort of “set up”–where the military folk, which were all Republican appointees, might have wanted to “steal his thunder” early in the Administration by potentially embarrassing him. I don’t think this is the case, but there may be some truth in it. Clinton was inexperienced in Washington. There was no secret that even though Colin Powell was the consummate military officer he didn’t like the Clinton-Gore approach to governing one bit (when Powell was at Willamette University last December he rolled his eyes describing the informality of a Clinton Cabinet meeting). So, I have to leave that one undecided at this point. It did cause a major “distraction” for Clinton for months, however. (emphasis included by Dr. Long)
Just for kicks, there is video evidence of this…
Exhibit C. BRANCH DAVIDIANS
That was on his watch…There also is no passing the buck onto Janet Reno, since he had to give the authorization to go ahead with the assault. Dr. Long details why…
I think the biggest mistake, which few people talk about these days, was the deadly bungling of the raid of the ATF officials on the Branch Davidian headquarters outside of Waco TX on April 19, 1993. Just do a Google search on the topic if you want to know a lot more. Suffice it to say that on Feb. 28, 1993, the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms…in the Treasury Department), which had been tipped off about the Branch Davidians’ collecting weapons since summer 1992, finally decided to raid the complex. Only problem was, the ATF had called a local ambulance company to notify them that they should be on the ready (possibility of a shoot-out, which is what happened), the ambulance company notified the newspaper, the newspaper reporter got lost on the way to the Branch Davidian compound and asked a local mailman where it was, the local mailman happened to be the brother-in-law of David Koresh, who was the leader of the Branch Davidians. Of course, the brother-in-law called Koresh, who set up his people to shoot to kill, and in the ensuing attempt of ATF to raid the compound four of them were killed and 20, a full 1/4 of the agents sent along, were injured. Several Davidians were killed.
Why I know that I like Dr. Long is that he already has the pre-empts to the arguments that people will make to justify this decision.
This set off a 51-day standoff, which was miserably ended by a decision made by Reno which Clinton approved. He recounts it inadequately in his autobiography. The decision was to tear-gas the facility, even though there were possibly 25 children in the house. As it was, the facility caught on fire, incinerating more than 80 people. Justifications for it were easily forthcoming–these are “bad” people, Koresh was another Jim Jones, the kids were abused, etc. etc., but nothing, in my mind, could cover up the fact that Clinton, working through a terribly inexperienced AG, made a very poor decision. I think what was behind it was that the FBI, which had already spent upwards of $50 million on the siege, just wanted to end it. It was the high-handed and dumb manner in which this siege was ended that led, ultimately, to the bombing of the Murrah building in OKC exactly two years later. Dumbness has its consequences.
So, under the first hundred days of the Clinton campaign, we had he inability to appoint an AG, the passing of “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation, (which was started by the gays in the military discussions and the hurting troop morale arguments he allowed himself to be blinded with during his first hundred days) and the Branch Davidian conflict. While I don’s exactly agree with the conclusion by republicnas, its sorta funny.
But, as of the end of April 1993, as some Republicans were fond of saying, “At the White house there were just two senior people–Christopher (Warren Christopher) and Bentsen (Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen). Other than that it was just ‘Home Alone.’”
When you measure the results, you have to be able to remove yourself from the situation. Most of the writers/commenters at the Confluence are unable to do so.
But, the real reason that I decided to post, and the other part of the title is to look at the fact that a discussion with Clinton and George W. Bush was not sold out. The people of the T.Dot, and home to blogroll rapper Drake, seemingly don’t care that the number 42 and 43rd presidents are going to speak.
Tenille Bonoguore
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail, Friday, May. 29, 2009 03:41AM EDT
Instead, he’ll be back to his usual Friday afternoon, and planning the next road trip to see his favourite rock band.
David Bester is a man willing to go to great lengths for a spectacular show. Indie rock band The Hold Steady is worth it, he says. U.S. Presidents numbers 42 and 43 are not.
So he’s selling the two tickets he purchased to tomorrow afternoon’s “conversation” between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre for less than their $189 face value.
“I bought them the day they became available. At the time I was very excited to go,” Mr. Bester said yesterday.
“It seemed like a really neat opportunity to go and hear something that is unusual, but the security precautions they are taking are turning it essentially into an all-day affair… I just could care less right now.”
What was meant to be the hottest ticket in town isn’t proving to be an easy sell.
Organizer Christian Darbyshire yesterday said “400 or 500″ tickets were still available from a total of 6,000.
A call to the ticket hotline confirmed that general admission tickets are still available at $229, but anyone willing to ask around can probably get their hands on discounted seats.
Doors open at 1 p.m. for the 3:30 p.m. event. Seating is first-come, first-served, and ticket holders have been warned to come early due to security measures. (It took two hours for guests at Mr. Bush’s first post-presidential talk in Calgary to clear security.)
For Mr. Bester, that’s just too much hassle for a show he suspects won’t have the fireworks he desires.
If Obama went to speak somewhere, the people would be out in force. Confluence, step your game up. Stateof Disbelief, you are going to have to try harder if you are going to smear the President.
How to pick a Supreme Court Justice: When nobody is happy, you probably made the right choice
May 28, 2009
Here is the nomination for the next justice of the Supreme Court.
The honorable Sonia Sotomayor was chosen by President Obama to potentially serve on the highest court of the land, pending nomination. Now, I thought and still think that she was a good, and clearly somewhat safe pick. I don’t mind the fact that the pick is safe, since there will be others during the Obama presidency. ( I am going out on a limb and claim that he will be a two term president and he will make at least one more nomination)
What gets me is how fast the tide has changed against this pick. One of the somewhat liberal sites I read for fun is the Confluence. I disagree with a lot of what transpired over there post election, since their movement has seemingly coalesced into a pity party. It’s funny that with some frontpagers, they have no problem posting my comments, but a certain clown (his words not mine) is obviously intimidated into answering the call to actually have a spirited forum debate on issues that he posts on.
One of the current topics is on the nomination and the insidious behavior of our President to cheat, lie and steal from everyone. When the nomination was not known, here is a sample of the comments. This one is in regard to comments about her (being Sotomayor) looks
cwaltz, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm Said: There is alot of pressure on women to appear a particular way. It doesn’t help that many women are just as guilty as men at judging a book by its proverbial cover.
Personally, Judge Sotomayer looks perfectly fine to me. Even more important is the fact that she has opinions and isn’t afraid to be vocal regarding those opinions. I can’t believe anyone would consider that a detriment, particularly in a judge. Isn’t the idea to argue or debate an idea on their merits? I was always under that impression perhaps since the courts themselves take the time to issue opinions and dissenting opinions.
The reason why this is so funny that they are up in arms now is that this flies against the PUMA provision of 51 percent. One of the reasons I get their funny form of of temporary time-out is that I bring up the notion of Identity Politics into the discussion. Synthesizing women down to just gender becomes defeatist to many of the movements that they (and sometimes I) find valuable.
But, Sonia Sotomayor should be right up their particular alley. She is a woman and if you listen to some of the commentators, thats all that matters. Here is a former frontpager expressing that thought…
I would like the New Agenda to gather with other like-minded groups to form a large voting bloc, made of women and men who understand that it is time for women to be first. I would like this voting bloc to demand of both Parties that at least 30% of the candidates put forth in 2010, and every election cycle going forward, be women. I would like this bloc to withhold its votes, time and money from both parties until this is done. I would also like this voting bloc to demand that the ERA be re-passed and ratified by 2012, and to withhold its votes, time and money from both parties until this is done. Other ways we can make her voices heard are boycotts of press outlets and companies that promote misogyny; demanding that history books include and honor the contributions of women; coordinate work stoppages in companies that practice sexism against their employees; and so on. There are so many possibilities, if we will only band together and act as one.
This viewpoint was furthered in another post earlier this week on why Males rule the world and what they can do about it
What are the key pieces of a strategic plan to challenge and dispel these errant legitimizing myths? I propose that there are three prongs to the approach:
- Support (supporting women in their quests for leadership)
- Education (providing information and education to society about the inaccuracies of legitimizing myths, the benefits of female leadership, and promoting the positive role models that can impact and change cultural stereotypes about women in leadership)
- Recruitment (active recruitment of women for political leadership)
If it comes down to a question of what comes first, women or ideologies, what should we choose? If we choose ideologies, we are potentially promoting continued male social dominance since males control the message at the moment. If we choose women first, and we can successfully erode male social dominance, we will then be in control of the message. I say choose women first.
The problem is, when that is the choice, you still are never satisfied. Maybe the post should be about just killing all the men. HelenK seems to love that solution, or at least the Lorena Bobbitt approach.
So, this strategy of course backfires when you have a woman against another woman, as I pointed out, or doesn’t work out so well when the only woman doesn’t support your (somewhat narrow and myopic) point of view. Now, instead of being happy that the stated goal of appointing as many women as possible to positions of power, they can only ATTEMPT TO SPECULATE that she will not be friendly to abortion issues and use that as a wedge. Or, JUST LIKE THE OTHER WOMAN THEY CRITIQUE, THEY TEAR DOWN A WOMAN! I thought that the post just said…well forget about it…
bostonboomer, on May 28th, 2009 at 12:51 am Said: I always knew Obama would find a way to appoint an anti-choice person to the court. That he would find a woman to do the dirty work doesn’t surprise me one bit. I feel the same way. Young women don’t seem to appreciate what women fought for back in the 70s. Now they are going to find out what it was like back when I was a young woman and we didn’t have access to birth control or safe abortions. Good luck to all those young women who voted for this nightmare we have in the WH now.
Well, Dr. BostonBoomer (since the front page indicated she finished her defense) you got what you wanted in the “elect a woman” (since gender is first) issue. Maybe you should wait until she actually rules on the issue (or at least wait for conformation hearings) before you tear her apart.
What is clear is the inability to be rational on the nomination and on President Obama ( I know that part must just kill you) and his policies. Just like you accuse anyone who supports Obama of drinking the kool-aid, (which is racist, since everyone knows that minorities drink kool-aid and other sugar water drinks, which are part of the hidden white agenda to kill blacks with diseases that are self inflicted…)
but it seems to have the reverse effect. Any choice by Obama, is a bad choice, cloaked by a political two-step designed to deny precisely those who failed to vote for him. Your blinders prevent you from seeing the benefits of political action of Obama. The one that is the chip shot gimme is your own HRC. Without Obama, there is no her.
But, of course, with conspiracy theories, you have to have someone spreading the theories that people follow.
Prolix, on November 20th, 2008 at 7:42 am Said:
Morning Riverdaughter — another wonderful product of your hypergraphia.
Here are two theories:
1. Obama wants to have as many well-known and respected souls on board as possible when the ship is state is floundering in order to deflect and defend his stolen turn at the helm.
2. He was trying to put a knife in the back of Hillary and Bill by leaking the SoS in order to eventually leak they had “failed” his conflicts vetting. The CDS of the press would have accepted it without question and chewed on it for weeks thereby politically neutering them to some extent. He forgot Hillary and Bill wrote the manual on close-in knife fights.
Well, of course, fail to give credit to Obama for crossing the aisle and extending a hand to make the best cabinet possible, in the land of the Confluence, the mere mention of Obama sends you to the spam filter. That is how powerful some people dislike him. And really?? Why didn’t she use it like Lorena Bobbitt when Bill was spreading his “message” on the blue dress?
But, she is considered strong for her ability to forgive an unpardonable sin in a marriage. The point here is the PUMAS are able to overlook that sin, but they roast Barack for “perceived sexism”, especially acts that are not his own.
BUT, THE BIGGEST SEXIST ACT A PERSON CAN DO TO THEIR PARTNER, they just seemingly sweep it under the rug. (Just wait…at least once a day, someone will mention Bill Clinton and make some snide comment about Barack. Does anyone but me remember Bill fucking Clinton sitting on his hands when a little issue named Rwanda sprung up on his watch? I voted for the man, but let’s no act like he was Jesus or something.
But it is not just the liberal section attacking her, the Conservatives are on the prowl as well.
Court Watch: As GOP Hangs Back, Conservatives Attack Sotomayor
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Only one Republican senator, Pat Roberts of Kansas, has come out so far and said he’ll vote against Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but conservative pundits and interest groups are already working overtime to make her nomination a subject of controversy. Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House speaker Newt Gingrich have both dubbed her a “racist” for her views on the impact of difference on judicial decision-making within a diverse society, while interest groups and even one potential GOP presidential candidate are using her nomination to raise funds.That’s the story moving online today.
So, while I get banned for suggesting that Identity Politics are the key to helping building coalitions between groups to get actual change, PUMAS are essentially joining their conservative doppelgangers to attempt to oust Sotomayor or spread the rumor that she was a smokescreen in deference to minority groups, so he can get his true hidden candidate on board. (I stated on the Confluence that I wanted — Leah Ward Sears, (chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, African American woman). Emory JD, 1980; Univ. of Virginia, LL.M, 1995) as the pick, but that Sotomayor would be another good choice. There is always some sinister method, some smoke arising that we should be concerned with. But they were ready to jump into the sack with McCain/Palin.
Here is the racism argument that they are so worried about and the reason why the answer she gave is the one that we should want.
No! No! No! and No! While these problems and many more have continued for decades, without nary a peep from these fine gentlemen, what is it that has finally shaken them to their core and made them realize racism is a serious moral problem worth speaking out and fighting against? It is a single comment made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor explaining that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The nerve! How could she?
Let’s look at those words one more time. She did not say a wise Latina woman WOULD reach a better conclusion. She tentatively HOPED; and HOPED that someone with this kind of experience might make a better decision not ALL THE TIME, simply MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
If no one is happy, that means, deep down, everyone was happy. You may not have gotten what you wanted, but wait to see if it was what you NEEDED. The fact that both sides are up in arms gives me hope that this was a good pick.
UPDATED: Here is another thing that gets me. If she was good enough for Bill, why isn’t she good enough now?
She knows what the eff she’s doing. The Princeton and Yale grad has served under the Bush senior and Clinton administrations, and her supporters contend this appointment was a long time coming.
As CNN points out…
Sonia Sotomayor, who is on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Bill Clinton.
Your BIG DAWG put her in the position to be selected. Can we blame Bill if it falls apart?
Man, if debate was this easy, I would have never lost a round.
This photo, taken at the 1969 National Debate Tournament is of Rich Lewis (left), Coach Larry Tribe (center), and Joel Perwin (right) from Harvard. Coach Larry Tribe, himself a national debate champion, from 1961, from went on to become a famous constitutional law professor and supreme court advocate: arguing 34 cases before the Court, including Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 438 (2001). Look at the Big Board. One tradition in debate that is kinda cool
maybe that is why I didn’t win… I didn’t go and conquer Law School, even though I had a bunch of opportunities. I will just have to take solace in my speaker award at the NDT and making it octos like it was my job in CEDA.
So, as part of my of daily reading, I read the Confluence, a PUMA group blog run by RiverDaughter that is on wordpress as well. I disagree with some of their methods ( like the 51 percent solution of picking a woman over a man based on gender) but I read what they have to say to process their message, agree with some, and disagree with a lot.
Seemingly, the only person that I have a problem with is a clown. No, really, I have a problem with a clown. This guy is a 40 something male who I recently found out is from Merced, CA. Based on his ID, he really has a problem with how people see him and measure his intellegence. His ID is MyIQ2xU.
There is no need for cheap shots at all. Just measure the speaker and the words spoken. Here is how his “post” starts out..http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/id-rather-have-the-plagues-of-egypt/#comment-345675
This “sleepy Central Valley city” is my hometown. If you count the unincorporated suburbs Merced is well over 100,000 in population, which is about four times the size it was when I was growing up. These days Merced is probably better know for meth labs than cow pastures.
I happened to be downtown the day Arnold’s caravan stopped for coffee at one of our three Starbucks. I was so excited I went into the used bookstore across the street and scanned the shelves for books by my favorite authors while I waited for my heart to stop racing.
I went to school with Cary Stayner, which some of you might think explains a lot. His younger brother Steven was kidnapped by a pedophile and held for 7 years before being found and returned to his family. They made a television movie about that.
Michelle Obama isn’t the biggest celebrity to ever visit Merced. President Jimmy Carter, Vice-President George H.W. Bush, the late Senator Robert Kennedy and George McGovern all gave speeches in Merced.
Merced is also the hometown of game show hostess Summer Bartholomew, who won the 1975 Miss California and Miss USA pageants. (you didn’t see the “Miss California” thing coming, didja?)
Michelle Obama is far from being the “biggest thing to happen” in Merced. Back in the seventies Ike and Tina Turner gave a concert at the fairgrounds, and the Goodyear Blimp visited the airport several times. Heck, we even had Phyllis Diller perform at our county fair one year!
Here is what I said in a comment back to the blog post.
The first lady coming to Merced IS A BIG DEAL.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/12/michelle-obama-to-bring-1-1-million-in-stimulus-to-ca/
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Saturday commencement address at the University of California, Merced, will trigger an estimated $1.1 million in business for the hard pressed area.
“Obviously, it’s a welcome windfall,” Merced Development Manager Frank Quintero told DailyFlotus at PoliticsDaily.com after tallying up the dollar impact of Mrs. Obama’s visit. Mrs. Obama’s daytrip is an anticipated bonanza for hotels, restaurants, gas stations and retail establishments. A local carwash is getting extra cash detailing three cars expected to be used in Mrs. Obama’s motorcade.
Plus, as someone who worked at and attended the CSU and UC system (Davis, SFSU and CSU Hayward), the notoriety and revenue for Merced is good.
Finally, how do you think that the first lady found her way to the sleepy town of Merced?
the work of the students who attend the university…
UC Merced spokesman Tonya Luiz said that before Mrs. Obama agreed to speak at graduation ceremonies, between 2,000 to 2,500 guests of 500 graduates were expected. After Mrs. Obama was persuaded by a group of students to keynote the commencement, the school opened the event to the public and now up to 12,000 will attend.
“When else would the average person in Merced, California see or hear the First Lady?” Luiz said.
While its always okay to joke, but joking about you would rather see a KNOWN WOMAN BEATER like Ike Turner is somewhat disingenuous with being a beacon for woman’s rights… pop the top for more… Read the rest of this entry »
Hater of the Week: Republicans in America
April 27, 2009
I try not to be surprised, but I can’t help it… I am an optimist. I always think things are going to turn around. But, this is going to be something that will just stick with us. Republicans hate Obama, but the Klan loves him…
That N@##er is going to lower my taxes and keep me and my "white power" loving family safe...A woman's place is in the home or making babies... GO OBAMA! (The writers and owners of Too Old do not condone this message...)
For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama’s job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president — 88% job approval among Democrats — and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).
By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush’s job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36% approved of Bush’s job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27% job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today.
The next Hater groups are PUMAS. They think that because their chosen candidate to solve all the worlds problems didn’t get elected, then lets pray that Obama screws America up so royally, then their candidate can get a shot. (in 2016, since we know that he is going to win another match-up)
But, in the words of Maino, Hi Haters!
I have reasons supported by facts to hate Sarah Palin....
Your poster boy, Bill Clinton, who as a president, I don’t have much bad to say about him (except you let Rwanda happen on your watch and you were taking head shots on the company dime) or his reign as Commander in Chief. With that said, Obama beat the brakes off him in looking at the polls during their first days in office.
The partisan gap in Bill Clinton’s early days was also substantially smaller than what Obama faces, largely because Democrats were less enthusiastic about Clinton. In early April 1993, 71% of Democrats approved of Clinton’s job performance, which is 17 points lower than Obama’s current job approval among Democrats. Republican ratings of Clinton at that point (26%) are comparable to their current ratings of Obama today (27%).
The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. In fact, a majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Carter’s job performance in late March 1977, and a majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Nixon’s performance at a comparable point in his first term.
People are so caught up in partisan rhetoric, they are willing to suffer incredible consequences, just so that they can say they were right, and the rest of us were wrong. I really wonder if PUMAS have looked at the other people who are satisfied with the way things are going. There only response for disagreement is ridicule. Fortunately for me, that just makes me stronger. I thrive on your hatred and it fuels my laughter when your fears don’t happen.
It seems that people in the different eras were more concerned with getting it right, than if their particular person won. Today, there would be no way that a Democrat (or at least one that aligned with the Democratic Party) would find themselves supporting Nixon, but he was the one that opened the lines of communication with China. People in the past recognized accomplishments and rewarded with more trust.
Obama, you have earned my trust and more Americans feel that way. PUMAS, you are fighting a lost cause…Here is what Obama did to your political party
Your silly infighting did the rest! Thanks, and have a nice day!
The Exploitation of President Obama Part Two: Obama Chia Pet
April 10, 2009
Has it really come to this?
The creator of the Chia Pet is ch-ch-cheesed off after Walgreens pulled a special-edition Chia Obama from its shelves — apparently over concerns that it might offend customers.
A representative for Walgreens said the company dropped the product because they didn’t want it to be misinterpreted. But Chia Pet creator Joseph Pedott told FOXNews.com he was “shocked” when he found out the mega-pharmacy was pulling his merchandise.
How can you be shocked that they took this tacky product off the market? Do you know the other things that people are putting out there? Why do you think that we need an Obama Chia Pet? For purpose does it serve outside of fattening your pockets?
The Chia Obama, a bust of the 44th president with sprouting grass-like “hair” in the tradition of the classic Chia Pet, was stocked at the Tampa and Chicago Walgreens stores as a test run.
Pedott said company executives approved the product ahead of time, but it was on the shelves for less than a week when he got an e-mail Friday from Walgreens saying “it’s not our image.”
“I’m sick about it,” Pedott, 76, said, disputing any suggestion that Chia Obama’s Chia hair was mocking the Afro hairstyle.
“Obama had an Afro — does that make him racist?” Pedott said. “So how the hell do you get racist out of it? And number one, you can give him a haircut.”
I don’t think that you are mocking anyone with the Chia Pet. Tackyness is the issue that you can’t come to grips with? Would it be okay to have Obama diapers? What about Obama Panty Liners? (whatever the hell that they are used for…) The simple thought is that this is the kind of thing that would get re-gifted in a second.
Pedott said he is a Republican, but he voted for Obama and was just trying to do right by the new president.
“It’s Americana,” Pedott said. “I thought I would take the good name of Chia and support the good things that he’s trying to do. … That was a labor of love.”
Pedott said he was so confident the Chia Obama was not offensive he even asked the Rev. Jesse Jackson to screen it when he ran into him recently at a Chicago eatery.
“He said, quote, ‘I think this is a find product,’ end quote — I have three witnesses,” Pedott said.
So when does Jesse speak for all black people. He thought it was a fine product just shows that he didn’t clearly think this one through. We are all guilty of this from time to time, so just keep it moving, Jesse F’d up.
Walgreens spokesman Robert Elfinger would not comment on whether the company was concerned about the product being seen as racially insensitive.
“We decided to pull the product because we didn’t want it to be subject to any misinterpretation,” he said. “People could interpret it through a political viewpoint or other viewpoints, and we wanted to avoid that situation.”
It’s not the first famous figure Pedott has Chia-ified. He’s created prototypes for a Hillary Clinton model, though he hasn’t rolled it out on the shelves yet. Plus he did one for Mr. T, at the request of Mr. T’s people.
Memo to Pedott…SHE LOST! Chia heads should only be for winners. Plus, she doesn’t have an afro. Her hair would look horrible.
Pedott had to pull advertising for the $19.99 Obama product after hearing from Walgreens, but said he’ll try to convince other retailers to give it a go. He’s already been putting a lot of work into the marketing.
The online product details give a pretty compelling pitch.
“Can you grow one? YES YOU CAN,” they say.
FOXNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.
NO WE CAN’T… finally something that I can agree with PUMAS about…
