he doesnt seriously think his wife is off limits? give me a break. the guy popped up out of nowwhere a couple years ago and shocked democrats that he could speak english.

didnt hear from him until the presidential campaign and he is supposed to be a legitimate candidate?

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 4:22:53 PM

Rat, not to mention the fact that the Obama campaign seems to have no problem bitching about Bill Clinton even though Hillary is in fact the one running for President.

It's really a sexist remark. Obama probably sees it as two different situations. Bill Clinton is a man and can take care of himself, while his wife needs protecting from the harsh words of political opponents.

Fuck that, man.

5/19/2008 4:24:49 PM

michelle obama and bill clinton are obviously two different situations.

also, obama isn't calling bill clinton's patriotism (or anything else nearly as stupid) into question.

also, barack doesn't use michelle's career as a source of experience to make a case for the legitimacy of his presidency (as hillary has done with bill).

but again i think it is fair game to question michelle, just that this patriotism garbage is stupid.

5/19/2008 4:27:28 PM

Hillary has been taking it up the ass for months now b/c of bill.

obama and crew was simply called the fuck out.. imo

5/19/2008 4:28:02 PM

not to mention, the clinton campaign has pulled the same stuff with chelsea this campaign.om

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM. Reason : omg are they sexist too!?!? or are ---perhaps---- former presidents held to a different standard?]

5/19/2008 4:29:28 PM

wait sarijoul. what the fuck are you being deaf for? bill clinton never even -hinted- at unpatriotic remarks

this dispute is about michelle obamas grinding quips about how pissed off she is about this country and how she finally is happy with it finally b/c her husband might be president


none of your remarks mean anything in that light.

5/19/2008 4:32:33 PM

"pride in the country" and "patriotism". sorry i didn't remember her exact words.

but it's the same idea.

5/19/2008 4:34:19 PM

^ Actually, Hillary uses her career as part of the Clinton White House as part of her experience. It ain't like she baked fucking cookies up there, so please don't pretend otherwise. Like BC said, they were a two-for-one deal. There would not be a Bill Clinton without a Hillary Clinton. I suggest you check out "My Life" for a little light reading.

And the nature of the attack is irrelevant to the situation. Obama said they should "lay off his wife", while he was fair game. He didn't say "don't call my wife unpatriotic", he said that she shouldn't be attacked at all. Why? I guess because she's a woman. I don't know.

I doubt Obama is actually a racist sexist, but he's figured out that mock outrage is what works in this campaign (at least for the Dems). It's all about who you can point the finger at as "stepping over the line."

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:36 PM. Reason : i mixed up my isms]

5/19/2008 4:35:18 PM

seems like if you(speaking generally) dont support obama by now you(speaking generally) might as well vote repub

5/19/2008 4:37:39 PM

Quote :

"The release ultimately was removed from the party's Web site at the urging of the state's two Republican senators and Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, who said he "rejects these kinds of campaign tactics.""

i guess the republicans agree with me (that this patriotism COUNTRY PRIDE stuff is crap)

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 4:37:59 PM

^ They agree that it wouldn't play well with some voters ("I'm so offended!!!") and no one disagreed. Now, if anyone wants to say that Obama is not a thing-skinned hypocrite for pissing and moaning about getting hit with a dose of his own medicine, that's a different story.

I think that if Obama wanted spouces off limits in the campaign, he probably should have thought of this shit earlier.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 4:41:12 PM

well, as i said before, there is a difference between michelle obama and bill clinton. one is a former president whose wife is using his presidency as a resume builder.

that being said, i think michelle obama should be fair game and i think she can hold her own. but i think it will backfire to attack a candidate's wife when she is only tangentially involved in the campaign (mostly as just a cheerleader for her husband).

5/19/2008 4:43:19 PM

^you're right sarijoul.

1. the repubs are saving their ammo
2. we'll let the voters, not the chair of some advertising wing control the votes

either way the fact that michelle obama is anti patriotic and anti-white will be proven soon enough if it hasn't been already.

5/19/2008 4:45:00 PM

Quote :

"the fact that michelle obama is anti patriotic and anti-white"

suuuuure

5/19/2008 4:46:22 PM

^ That only means they are different people, not that this is a different situation. Did Michelle ever employee Obama or use him as her aide in a political campaign? No. Does that matter? Not one fucking bit.

Obama said that attacks on his wife and his family were out of bounds. PERIOD.

Quote :

""The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family." "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wife

If you can reconcile this statement with your argument then you're a better man that I.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 4:48:00 PM

Quote :

"i kinda agree with you on that one. if she's going to be campaigning for her husband, then the press (or whomever) can pull her into this. BUT, this "unpatriotic" criticism is utterly ridiculous. "

yeah, i'm pretty sure my argument works still. NOTE: i disagree with what barack obama said (GASP!).

i think what he's saying will likely work politically though, because attacking a candidate's spouse usually doesn't tend to work out well in the end.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 4:50:49 PM

Quote :

"michelle obama and bill clinton are obviously two different situations. "

No, this statement does not hold in light of what Obama actually said. Either attacks on family members are "unacceptable" or they are not. Obama said they are, therefore his campaigns attacks on Bill are "unacceptable". And the situations are exactly same.

Thanks.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 4:54:50 PM

i don't agree with barack obama. do i have to say that YET AGAIN?

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : i thought i made that clear in my first response last page]

and no, the situations aren't the same.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 4:55:45 PM

umm. That was actually with regards to what YOU said weiner, when you said that his campaigns attacks on Bill were a different situation from the GOP's attacks on Michelle. I think I just illustrated that they are not different in the context of this dicussion.

But whatever. I'll bow out to let you save face...or whatever reason you're still protesting.

5/19/2008 4:57:35 PM

weiner?

and they're different because he's a former president. the better parallel would be to chelsea. chelsea is a campaigner for her mom. i would think attacks against her would be counterproductive, but fair game because she's a part of her mother's campaign.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 5:01:11 PM

Quote :

"US billionaire Buffett backs Obama for president Mon May 19, 12:37 PM ET FRANKFURT (AFP) - Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is backing Barak Obama for US president and thinks current US economic policy will push the dollar lower against other global currencies Buffett told a press conference here Monday he had offered support to both Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton but that since it appeared Obama would win the party's nomination, "I will be very happy if he is elected president. "He is my choice," Buffett said. Commenting on the US economy, the 77-year-old investor who is known as the "Sage of Omaha," stressed that fiscal, monetary and trade policies were of great importance."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080519/ts_alt_afp/germanyusinvestpoliticsbuffett_080519163709;_ylt=AoMZ0By0QIhdx_88YO8En7Fh24cA

5/19/2008 5:11:59 PM

Is it so wrong for a guy to stand up for his wife and kids when they are under scrutiny?

He portrays himself as a family man, and he would have to respond in such a way to be protective of his family.

I think it would be rather tasteless for anyone to go after other family matters. It doesn't make it illegal though. It's sort of like the low blow. While some might think it's understood that you don't go after another guy's nuts in a fight, others will say that there is no such thing as "fair" in a fight.

He has to accept that he'll have to continually deal with the nonsense, just like McCain will have to do about his wife and her wealth, or Hillary and Chelsea.

5/19/2008 5:21:12 PM

^^ Figures he would endorse Obama without endorsing any of his policies. He only says that "current policies" are driving the dollar lower. He doesn't say how Obama's policy would "fix the situation".

Most likely, he's complaining about how our growing deficit is potentially leading to a lower dollar (but we've been running deficits for 8 years, what changed? Could it be the collapse of the housing market?). If that's the case, there is no reason to think Obama would remedy the "problem" (the falling dollar is probably a good thing at the moment). Indeed, Obama said that balancing the budget would not be on top of his to-do list. And the billions of dollars of new spending his proposing would probably make the deficit even worse.

But, Buffett isn't the first to support Obama for reasons other than policy or experience. Like I pointed out a little while ago, lot's of folks at major publications prefer to endorce Obama because he's black and lived outside the US. Talk about the triumph of identity politics.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 5:24:38 PM

Was Obama a Muslim when he was living in Indonesia as a child? I've heard mixed results. Supposedly he went to a Muslim school, but it wasn't a radical Muslim school

but anyway, on Good Morning America today he said he had never been a Muslim...so was he a Muslim as a child or not?

btw not that theres anything wrong with being raised in a certain religion, i'm just curious if he lied today on Good Morning America

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 6:21:29 PM

Quote :

"Like I pointed out a little while ago, lot's of folks at major publications prefer to endorce Obama because he's black and lived outside the US."

Bullshit

5/19/2008 6:42:00 PM

Hey Socks``, I finally read your response to my post a page and half back. Sorry for the delay.

Quote :

"If you want to argue who has a more extensive record"

I don't... and didn't actually. Please note the lack of references to McCain.

Quote :

"Your next best option is to say that experience doesn't count [I'm not] and that Obama's ideas are better. But you would be pretty lonely company there too"

Unless you happen to support universal healthcare, want the US to withdraw from Iraq within our lifetimes, want to repeal Don't ask Don't Tell, want to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, understand the difference between appeasing an enemy and talking to them, consider songs about bombing Iran to be in horrendously bad taste... b/c I think all those ideas are better than McCain's...

Quote :

"So I recommend following everyone else's example. Play up his mushy qualities that no one can really define or quantify: his speaking ability, his "judgement", how he will be a "new face" of America to the world."

You sound like the cynical smart-ass kid sitting in the back of the high school classroom who spends all his time trying to put down the popular guy whose getting all the ladies. "Wah wah wah... he's only getting the girls b/c his parents bought him a car... and because he's funny and charming... and b/c he's smart and articulate... and because he plays on the basketball team... blah blah freakin' blah"

You know, people have already tried to diffuse and dismiss Obama as mere hype, rhetoric, and empty promises. I call those people the rest Democratic field, including the once "unbeatable" Hillary Clinton. Looking at Obama's short political career, it was pretty reasonable to categorize Obama as the "flavor of the week." Logically speaking he shouldn't have had a prayer against Clinton. She had the political base, the experience, name recognition, and a truckload of financial backers. It shouldn't have even been a contest... and yet we stand here today counting down the days until Obama officially gains the nomination.

Quote :

"This is a pretty sorry candidate your party has chosen for you. "

My party? [user]Socks''[/user], I haven't had a political party since 2001 when the GOP became warmongering morons and the Democrats became sniveling sissies. I don't have any clue at this point who will get my vote, b/c quite frankly I have serious issues with all the candidates' respective platforms.


However, you and others bitch and moan about Obama and how his supporters don't have any rational reasons to support him. You may even be right. But seriously... after 8 years of being embarrassed by the most inept administration imaginable... McCain... the maverick of 2000... has basically caved on countless key issues he once stalwartly opposed. He's decided to label his campaign Bush II: The Quest to Make Bad Ideas Finally Succeed.

Let me clue you in on something - the American people have had the past 7+ years to fully understand how fucking stupid our President's policies are. We've had 7+ years to watch our country waste its resources, attempt to bully the rest of the world into submission, and generate a deficit that even has liberals flabbergasted. And yet... McCain think we just need more of the same...


Therein lies the support for Obama, and the Democrats as a whole since 2006. The country has gotten a good look at what the GOP has to offer... and it sucks. It sucks SO bad that the people want to start over. Get a clean slate. Start fresh. The people are willing to support that inexperienced new-kid-on-the-block b/c quite frankly they want CHANGE. And yeah, this arbitrary "change" motif is indeed not a good a basis for choosing a president... but it hasn't stopped Obama yet... even though he's a black man with a checkered past whom is relatively underqualified for the job....


So, by all means, keep on bitching about hype machine that is the Obama movement. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. This election year I'll just be sitting back, downing beer after beer, all while thoroughly enjoying all the fireworks stirred up as cynical jackasses such as yourself continue to stutter, stammer, and trip overthemselves trying to convince us that this guy shouldn't be the next president of the United States

5/19/2008 7:14:41 PM

Erios,

Achieveing universal health care is a goal, not a policy. Obama's proposal for achieveing universal health care is a simply not likely to work. Paul Krguman was probably the most vocal critic on the issue, though I don't have time to provide links.

And leaving Iraq is also a goal, not a policy. How exactly does Obama plan on withdrawing our troops? Is his 16 month deadline flexible (meaning we could suspend withdrawal if the Iraqi government meets certain goals) as in his 2007 proposal, or is inflexible (meaning we are out in 16 months no if ands or butts) as he argued in 2008? Get back to me when you can answer those questions.

The rest of your post is not too substanative, so I won't go into it. I'll just say that it's clear you're pretty new to stuff. I suggest hitting the books. These issues are pretty complicated, so you treat them as such.

5/19/2008 11:01:40 PM

Socks``,

I'm amused that you still haven't picked up on one very important fact in this "conversation" we have running - I am not an Obama supporter. My posts were in no way an attempt to sway you into his camp. Instead, I'm merely pointing out that your attempts to belittle and deride Obama with such juvenile banter like "Play up his mushy qualities that no one can really define or quantify" were no more substantive than the Barack supporters at which you were aiming them.

In short, as I said before, I'm giving less and less of a damn about this election b/c:

1) I'm not convinced that Obama or any Democrat for that matter has any real strategy in Iraq. The sad reality is that, despite how badly the Iraq has been handled, the Democrats have been equally inept at coming up with anything better. Trust me, you don't have to convince me of the ambiguity in Obama's "16-month withdrawal." Quite frankly the Democrats have come up with hundreds of plans for Iraq which all either (A) made no sense or were too ambiguous to become real policy, or (B) were torn to shred amid political opposition.

2) The McCain of 2000 is dead. The guy that recognized the need for compromise on immigration reform, the guy that saw the Bush tax cuts for what they were - a sinkhole for the budget passed in order to pander to his base, the guy that condemned hacks like Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton with equal vigor, the guy that stuck to his guns and did what was right - and not necessarily what was sought by the right wing... that dude never came home after losing the GOP nomination 8 years ago.

Since then he's focused on his last objective before a well deserved retirement - getting into the White House... at all costs. The man has sacrificed his principles to get elected. I don't blame him for it - such a thing happens at every level of government on a daily basis. But I will however hold McCain in the same regard as I regard every other hypocritical pandering slimeball that would sell his mother if it could get him another term.

In all fairness, I will never lose respect for McCain. His war record, his years of service in Congress, and his moderate, independent tendencies have seen to that. He is indeed a great man that I hold in the highest regards... but he is not the man I wanted to be president 8 years ago. He now is but a hollow shell of that man, and come November I'll have a tough time deciding whether enough of that maverick spirit remains in him to sway me into casting a vote in his favor.

3) I don't like either candidates' plans for healthcare. I'm not sold on universal healthcare, but McCain offers little in the way of reform. It's painfully obvious that the healthcare system is broken in this country. Like Iraq, I'm still waiting for better ideas to come forward.

4) It's the unknown product versus the old/repackaged product. It's fresh squeezed milk versus milk that's been processed and bottled, but gone sour after being left on the kitchen counter. One guys is the fresh face which, to one extent or another, is an unknown/untested commodity. The other is a proven commodity that's begin to lose its luster. Each has strengths and weaknesses in these regards, and to me it's a wash...


So yeah, before saying shit like this:

Quote :

"I'll just say that it's clear you're pretty new to stuff. I suggest hitting the books. These issues are pretty complicated, so you treat them as such."

... I suggest you consider the spirit and purpose of my post(s). If you want to throw down on the issues, bring it on. The fact that you assumed I'm some kind of political novice indicates that you either (A) are completely oblivious to my track record in TSB or (B) are the one who is "pretty new to this stuff."


Lastly, I have no issue with you. You're posts are for the most part coherent, substantive, and are positive influence on the discourse of the thread. So please don't belittle yourself by talking down to me like I'm some run-of-the-mill liberal hack for whom you need to expose their naive political positions for their grossly apparent lack of rational thought.

That kinda shit pisses me off


[/rant]

5/20/2008 12:06:52 AM

Quote :

"but anyway, on Good Morning America today he said he had never been a Muslim...so was he a Muslim as a child or not? btw not that theres anything wrong with being raised in a certain religion, i'm just curious if he lied today on Good Morning America "

It depends what you mean "when he was a child" and "was a muslim." Not all people who say they are Christians, especially children, are Christians or really knows what it means to be Christian (particularly children).

5/20/2008 12:57:03 AM

```

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:02 AM. Reason : ``]

5/20/2008 7:52:56 AM

ShinAnito,

Not Bullshit. I'll re-post the two articles I was referring to. Both are examples of relatively well known opinion makers at large magazines supporting Obama because of his identity.

1) Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek in his article supporting Obama, "The Power of Personality"

Quote :

"There's a debate taking place about what matters most when making judgments about foreign policy— experience and expertise on the one hand, or personal identity on the other. And I find myself coming down on the side of identity... Obama's argument is about more than identity. He was intelligent and prescient about the costs of the Iraq War. But he says that his judgment was formed by his experience as a boy with a Kenyan father—and later an Indonesian stepfather—who spent four years growing up in Indonesia, and who lived in the multicultural swirl of Hawaii. I never thought I'd agree with Obama. I've spent my life acquiring formal expertise on foreign policy. I've got fancy degrees, have run research projects, taught in colleges and graduate schools, edited a foreign-affairs journal, advised politicians and businessmen, written columns and cover stories, and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles all over the world. I've never thought of my identity as any kind of qualification. I've never written an article that contains the phrase "As an Indian-American ..." or "As a person of color ..." But when I think about what is truly distinctive about the way I look at the world, about the advantage that I may have over others in understanding foreign affairs, it is that I know what it means not to be an American. "

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157

2) Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic in his article on "Why Obama Matters".

Quote :

"The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. It has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals’ and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama’s considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills. Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton.... What does he offer? First and foremost: his face....Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

And these are just the two articles that stick out most in my mind. I've also seen Obama supporters popping up on television making the same argument that Obama's identity is what will make him a good President.

You will have a much harder time tracking down someone that supports Obama because of any of his policy proposals. Mind you, you will find many people saying they support Obama's stated goals (eventually leaving Iraq, universal health care, etc), but you wont find many people saying that they like the way Obama has proposed meeting those goals.

And I would be willing to bet that if you do find an article detailing how someone supports Obama for his specific policy proposals, it will be written by someone who is not an expert in any policy field.

About the only issue Obama gets props on is not supporting the gas tax holiday, which was largely a symbolic victory since even his supporters argued its impacts would be small and distributional (no impact on market efficiency). But if you have any particular articles you would like me to read, I would be willing to do so.



[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM. Reason : ```]

5/20/2008 8:01:31 AM

Socks, you really shouldn't point out the first article because it actually goes against what you're arguing. It's fairly clear that when Zakaria says, "I find myself coming down on the side of identity..." he's referring to the division that has been drawn between Clinton and Obama, experience and identity, not his actual identity.

He sums it up very clearly actually, and I'm surprised you lack the reading skills to parse it:

Quote :

"Obama's argument is about more than identity. "

and

Quote :

" But when I think about what is truly distinctive about the way I look at the world, about the advantage that I may have over others in understanding foreign affairs, it is that I know what it means not to be an American."

And the second article argues that both Clinton and Obama's policies are so similar that you have to look towards things like what Obama's face (or image) projects to other nations. I understand what the author is saying, but I'm not exactly sure I agree with him completely on this issue.

Regardless, I think you're completely misreading the first article and cherrypicking words to bolster your argument.

5/20/2008 8:22:54 AM

^So what is Fareed Zakaria trying to say exactly? It seems pretty clear to me that he is saying that he prefers Obama because of the experiences gained from his multi-cultural roots and his overseas childhood.

How is that different from what Socks' ' said?

Quote :

"lot's of folks at major publications prefer to endorce Obama because he's black and lived outside the US."

5/20/2008 8:50:46 AM

Shankin Monkey,

If I was cherrypicking, and that sentence contradicted my argument, I would have excluded it from my quote. In actuallity, I wanted people to read the statements in context so they could see I was not cherrypicking. Shame on me for thinking people would read entire paragraphs of text. Allow me to break it down.

Z is saying that Obama's argument goes beyond identity to include judgement. As Obama and his supporters have noted on many occasions, the fact that Obama opposed the Iraq War in 2002 reflects "better judgement" than his opponents.

However, Z is saying that even this argument boils down to identity. He may have better judgement, but this judgement was formed as a result of having a culturally diverse background and heritage. If you actually quote the entire paragrah (rather than cherry picking single sentences) you will see this.

Quote :

"Obama's argument is about more than identity. He was intelligent and prescient about the costs of the Iraq War. But he says that his judgment was formed by his experience as a boy with a Kenyan father—and later an Indonesian stepfather—who spent four years growing up in Indonesia, and who lived in the multicultural swirl of Hawaii. "

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ``]

5/20/2008 8:57:46 AM

How the Valley put Obama over the top

Recently I pointed out that the Valley deserved a great deal of credit for Obama's success. (See here.) Now the big brains at The Atlantic have figured that out too and have turned out a terrific piece about the huge role that Valley money-raisers and techies had in helping Obama gain an edge. Also very smart is the author's recognition that Obama fits in out here -- he's young, charismatic, maybe light in experience but in the Valley we're all about the new new thing, and that's what Barry is. So people took to him and wanted to invest in him. Better yet, Barry understood the power of social networking and put it to work on his Web site, big time. And he's a Mac user. As we say in the Valley, he gets it. It also didn't hurt that the Clintstones made a huge error in refusing to play ball with the Valley, relying instead on the same old rich cronies they've always turned to for money. Money quote: "As a result, the wealthiest region of the wealthiest state in the nation was left to Barack Obama."

Suck on it, Clintstones. And note to the rest of America -- we may not be as sexy as Hollywood or Wall Street, but you know what? We've got a shitload of money, and we know how to organize. We're a powerful bunch of khaki-wearing, gay-marriage-supporting, arugula-eating, Mac-using elitist nerds out here. To all of you racist homophobic non-Californian dumb fucks who find that annoying? Tough shit. We outsmarted you. We out-spent you. And now for the next eight years we're going to be running this country. We're going to give equal rights to gay people, fund stem-cell research, teach evolution, take down the fence on the Mexican border, and make sure abortion stays safe and legal. We're going to pull out of Iraq, shut down Gitmo, and stop torturing people. And yeah. A black dude with a Muslim-sounding name and degrees from Columbia and Harvard is going to be in charge. So sit back down, strap yourself in, and shut the fuck up, crackers.

Posted by Steve at 5:19 PM 26 Comments Links to this post
Labels: Decision 2008

5/20/2008 10:45:50 AM

"If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated." -- Thomas Sowell

5/20/2008 11:58:19 AM

^ No one disputes the difference between talking and doing, but there's a very big difference raw talent and a total lack of talent. You can suggest all you like that Obama is underprepared for the job, but:

1) There's no disputing that he's a political talent that will be around for a long time to come.

2) None of the candidates have experience being the President.

3) Politics, like it or not, is all about the image you project. Talking =/= doing, but what you say and how you say are incredibly important when it comes to being the President.

5/20/2008 12:21:56 PM

Quote :

"2) None of the candidates have experience being the President."

Tell me you were laughing when you typed this.

5/20/2008 12:31:38 PM

Yah! You can't discount the ability to give a good speech. I mean, look at JFK! He was a suave inexperienced Senator too. Look how much he accomplished on a whole range of issues!

In health care, medicare and medicaid ensured that our nations old and poor would have access to medical care. On the Environment, the Clean Air and the Clean Water Acts empowered the executive branch of the government to begin regulating harmful pollutants that were killing us and our planet.

Oh wait. All of those are LBJ's achievements. An ugly, cursing southerner that had extensive experience in the Senate before becomming President. In fact, JFK's presidency was marked by few legislative achievements and several foreign policy blunders (Bay of Pigs anyone?).

Shit doesn't happen in any legislature (state or federal) because of pretty speeches. It's all about horse tradding. Who can get what from whom. That's why ugly bullshitters get things done, while pretty speech makers get their faces on commerative plates.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ``]

5/20/2008 1:30:38 PM

Kennedy was working on that legislation before he got kilt. I guess you never took the time to read about the New Frontier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier

and Bay of Pigs was inherited from Eisenhower.


[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2008 1:44:44 PM

nutsmakr,

When the fuck do you think Kennedy was killed? His first term was almost over. What was he doing in the mean time? Think about the Civil Rights Act. It was introduced in 1963, yet stalled in committee. It didn't pass until LBJ became President and started dealing directly with Howard Smith and other Democrats who didn't want to see it passed. He signed the bill into law in 1964.

Kennedy gave lots of nice speeches in support, but only one guy got it passed.

PS* The Ike bit is a cop out. Ike didn't determine policy in the Kennedy White House. Kennedy did. If he didn't want to send the mission, he didn't have to.

Note: Note: For accuracy, my original post should read that there a variety of Clean Air Acts and ammendments to those acts. I thought about including dates, but didn't want to ruin the pay off.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ``]

5/20/2008 1:55:47 PM

He died in '63. I understand that you are attempting to discount Obama supporters, but to nullify the accomplishments of JFK is foolhardy and will lead you down the path of stupidity.

5/20/2008 5:21:10 PM

Quote :

"Yah! You can't discount the ability to give a good speech. I mean, look at JFK! He was a suave inexperienced Senator too. Look how much he accomplished on a whole range of issues! "

You're not doing much to help your credibility. JFK was killed two years into his term. Your asking for an ass-kicking if you're criticizing his "lack of accomplishments" as president.

nutsmackr is also right about the Bay of Pigs. I suggest hitting the books

Quote :

"Tell me you were laughing when you typed this."

Yes I am the master of the obvious, but the point remains

5/20/2008 5:33:46 PM

nutsmakr,

Exactly, in NOVEMBER of 63. Well into the second half of his term. Indeed, Kennedy was primarily in Dallas to start ramping up for re-election (collecting money etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Background_of_the_visit

So what was he waiting on? I don't know if you realized it, but Post WWII Presidents have actually tended to get LESS done the longer they stay in office.

The fact you guys caught the boomer-Kennedy-lust from your Parents isn't my problem. The Great Society has impacted your lives far more than The New Frontier. And it wasn't because of any pretty speeches. It was because we had a politican that played politics (the horror). DEAL WITH IT!

PS* I would note that Kennedy had the benefit of having a Democratically controlled House and Senate.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : ``]

5/20/2008 5:45:45 PM

yes. the "great society" has royally fucked us all to hell. Thanks FDR!

5/20/2008 5:51:50 PM

Quote :

" Hillary Clinton 400,112 67.06% 28 Barack Obama 184,579 30.93% 8 John Edwards 11,980 2.01% 0 "

if the race is over, why can't he put her away. she just fuckin pwned him in kentucky.

and she's gonna easily get the majority of the popular vote.... you know why she's gonna lose though EVEN WITH THE POPULAR VOTE?


answer:

Quote :

"Suck on it, Clintstones. And note to the rest of America -- we may not be as sexy as Hollywood or Wall Street, but you know what? We've got a shitload of money, and we know how to organize. We're a powerful bunch of khaki-wearing, gay-marriage-supporting, arugula-eating, Mac-using elitist nerds out here. To all of you racist homophobic non-Californian dumb fucks who find that annoying? Tough shit. We outsmarted you. We out-spent you. And now for the next eight years we're going to be running this country. We're going to give equal rights to gay people, fund stem-cell research, teach evolution, take down the fence on the Mexican border, and make sure abortion stays safe and legal. We're going to pull out of Iraq, shut down Gitmo, and stop torturing people. And yeah. A black dude with a Muslim-sounding name and degrees from Columbia and Harvard is going to be in charge. So sit back down, strap yourself in, and shut the fuck up, crackers."

5/20/2008 9:04:18 PM

Quote :

"So sit back down, strap yourself in, and shut the fuck up, crackers."

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


and no way she gets the popular vote

5/20/2008 11:39:25 PM

Quote :

"and she's gonna easily get the majority of the popular vote."

if you count michigan and florida AND you don't count caucus states she MIGHT get a narrow lead in the clinton-rules popular vote.

but ultimately it doesn't matter because he'll have the delegates.

and i guess it feels great to win a state in which over 20% polled said they chose the candidate they did because of race (and 90% of those people voted clinton).

man i wish i was a clinton supporter so i could feel good about winning over awesome people like that.

5/20/2008 11:48:00 PM

well 90% of blacks vote for Obama and the democratic party isn't going to be there to disenfranchise states obama is going to lose anyway come november. popular votes are popular votes and Hillary has collected more than anyone in democratic primary history.

5/20/2008 11:56:10 PM

if you count primaries that were in breach of Democratic rules and you discount ones that followed the rules, then sure.

5/20/2008 11:59:02 PM