How Obama fell to earth

[iplaw]

quote:Obama tamed his rhetoric for the democrats.

Why would he need to do that?  Sounds very duplicitous to me.  Why can he not be honest, even with his own party?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
Why would he need to do that?  Sounds very duplicitous to me.  Why can he not be honest, even with his own party?

George: Can we get some honesty on stage please?

Clinton: I hate black people.  Really.  Well, not that I hate them I guess.  They just make me comfortable, especially when they run against me.  No, I have to be honest, I hate them.

Obama:  I eat white babies.  Man it feels good to get that off my chest.

McCain: Well now that it looks like I win by default, I only hate Vietnamese - but I plan on removing whatever civil rights everyone has left and sinking another Trillion into the desert.  It's a two party system, SUCKERS!

/too far?  Sometimes I go crazy on Fridays.

[edit]McCain had to hate Vietnamese... forgot to include that[/edit]

[iplaw]

Well clearly he hates the Vietnamese since he clearly loves Mexicans....umm errr...oops.  I though all white republicans hated Mexicans.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Goodness, RM, your now citing to right wing pundits to make your case against Obama?  David Brooks-the only commentator that thought ABC's was praiseworthy.  

Do you mean this David Brooks who wrote this praise of Obama and says he is a much better candidate for President than Hillary?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Or this one where he says "He (Obama) believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you'll get a nation standing up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Or maybe this column where he praises Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html

He was the big cheerleader for Obama in December through March and now has begun to change his mind about Obama. He titled his column well. Obama has come back down to Earth. I think that many others are beginning to agree. The Obama people should begin to realize that their candidate might not win.

Of course Brooks praised Obama over Hillary.  Like most right wing pundits, Brooks despises the Clintons and everything they stand for.  If a dead dog had run against Hillary, he would have praised the dead dog.  The truth is that Brooks is an elitist who somehow thinks that he knows what Americans think, and therefore can critique Obama's suppose lack of connection to the common man.  Do you really think David Brooks has a single clue what a typical American thinks?

quote:As always, David Brooks knows how "they" think and what's important to "them" -- so much so that no proof is ever needed for his claims. As always, it's not David Brooks and his childish colleagues in journalism who are interested in insipid, Drudge-like storylines. No, not at all. They so wish they could be covering weightier matters. But they can't, because those stunted, unsophisticated Americans out there -- the ones Brooks is able simultaneously to look down upon and understand and speak for -- don't want to hear about any weighty matters. They are capable only of thinking about whether Obama can bowl and whether Edwards likes his hair too much (and, of course, it's the very same media stars who spout this condescension about the Regular Folk who have decreed that Barack Obama -- and Al Gore, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, etc. etc. -- are elitists because they look down on Regular Americans).

Leave aside the question of whether those who hold themselves out as political journalists ought to report on substantive matters and be guided by objectives other than maximizing profits. Even with regard to what "Americans" want, David Brooks has no idea whether what he's saying here is true and he also doesn't care. He asserts these matters as fact because his only goal is to defend his "profession" and his colleagues. Thus, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos and all the rest of them have no choice but to be as petty and vapid as they are because that's what "Americans" want.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/brooks/

It's how the "journalist" get to set the storyline for the election--talk about issues of no substance that paint the candidate in a certain light.  It all goes under the guise of "electibility" so that the story doesn't even have to be true--it just has to affect the candidate.  You can ask Hillary, "why does everyone think you are a liar, and hate you?"  because that goes to "electibility."  You can ask Obama "can you prove that you are not a Muslim" because if everyone thinks you are, you can't get elected.  By even bringing up the question, the media suggests there might be some validity to the false beliefs.  Then they can simply continue the same stories, without ever having to prove them true.

I know you support Hillary, and I appreciate that.  But these are the same people who called Hillary's husband unelectable because of marital infidelity, because of protesting the Vietnam war, because of smoking pot, wrapping it all up in the "character" issue.  Do you not remember the responses then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPPCP9S9EA

It's scary to me how familiar those words of Mary Matalin sound today....

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Obama talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

Really?  Because that's not my memory of Obama and his wife Michelle, who both could've easily scored any number of high powered/highly lucretive jobs post-college (see Chelsea Clinton)... but instead Barack became a low-paid community organizer on the southside of Chicago.  The kind of job that will give anyone who tries it a better perspective on human nature, broken families, the role of the "black church," the opportunity for government to help... the stark limitations of what government alone is able to do....

I have a friend who taught English/creative writing/speech for a few years at one of the worst public schools on the southside of Chicago:  Englewood HS... the broken homes, the discipline problems, the amazing stories of some amazing kids who can easily fall through the cracks... the story of a kid who got an athletic scholarship only to lose his life, gunned down before graduation for no reason...
http://www.schoolsafety.us/pubfiles/savd.pdf
from pg. 32... "Maurice Davis, captain and star player of the school's basketball team, was fatally shot outside the school while apparently trying to protect his sister from two other male students.  The shooting occured across the street from the high school after classes let out at about 3 pm.  His sister was also treated for a gunshot wound.  Early reports indicate that the shooting stemmed from a fight between the victim's 17-year old sister and the alleged shooter earlier that day inside the school."  

But since government bureacracy sets unfair accountability standards while the republican party's busy bashing teacher's unions, that school is being closed down this year... yeah, "no child left behind" my aZZZZ...

Ironically, the reason why I will not support Hillary Clinton is because she "talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk."  

A year or two after moving to Chicago in 1990, I asked a Bill Clinton volunteer what kind of prez Bill would be:  he said Bill Clinton would be "the best Republican president we've ever had."

Clinton gave us a higher minimum wage and a budget surplus... the Brady Bill... his "largest tax increase in American history" affected the wealthiest who made the biggest gains in the 80s under Reaganomics... http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0308/Is_it_really_the_largest_tax_increase_in_American_history.html

...I can give credit where credit is due, but Clinton also... handed over the House and Senate to the Republicans; signed into law "don't ask, don't tell" which resulted in dramatic increases in gay related discharges over the Reagan and Bush days...

Hillary Clinton is running on her experience and making a big issue of her years as first lady... yet the only real experience I remember for Hillary was her high-profile role in her husband's "Managed Care" initiative.  

Hillary Clinton failed miserably on health care in the 90s.  Nothing changed.  For most of the 90s, I did without insurance... health insurance is employer-based, so if you're self employed, you pay a huge premium--even if you're young, healthy... and broke.  You're also stuck negotiating all sorts of "fiery trials"-- if you have dependants, they (and you) can be denied health insurance simply because one of your kids was hospitalized with asthma... pre-existing condition for one child, and your entire family loses... have a nice day!  [xx(]

I find it ironic hearing all this pro-Hillary, anti-Obama stuff from HT... if anybody "talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk" on gay issues, that person is Hillary Clinton... but she certainly knows how to pander to gays like nobody's business...

Hillary Makes Sure 'The Advocate' Understands How Much She Does Not Support Marriage Equality

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/09/hillary_makes_sure_the_advocat_1.html


It's unclear which is more funny — Hillary's face in this picture, or whatever is going on with that dude in the upper right-hand corner.
Photo: WireImage

I guess its too much to ask that the gay community allow a black man to break through the male gay-icon glass ceiling... just add another statuette of Hillary Clinton to the mantle, since she'll go so well with:  Judy Garland, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Liza Minelli, Barbara Streisand, Ethel Merman, Patsy Cline, Bette Midler, Cher, Madonna, Tallulah Bankhead... etc. etc... ad infinitum... [)]

[FOTD]

Turnout boost could favor Obama
Tribune analysis finds battleground red states could turn blue as Democrats push registration drive

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-turnout-web-jun25,0,327711.story

"  A projection by the Tribune based on the results of the 2004 election shows that a turnout increase of 10 percent among blacks and youths—two groups that have demonstrated considerable excitement over the Obama candidacy—would offer a powerful potential lift to his campaign."

FOTD tried to convey this theory many months ago only to be brought down by the angels here at TNF. Of course, that was back when the MSM had them looking the other way.

The irony sits with the republican congress and their Rovian Presidunce gerrymandering state districts over the last 8 years for the purpose of gaining more seats by manipulating powerful voting blocks. The intention of the republican congress was to dilute these black swing districts because the typical %10 of black turnout would no longer have footholds as their power in numbers dwindle. But, now up to %90 black voters will go to the polls to vote for their candidates which was unforeseen by these crooked politicians.  So, like everything else dishonestly done by Bushco et al, it's backfiring now.

That along with the fact there are so many voters afraid to even admit they are republicans.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD




The irony sits with the republican congress and their Rovian Presidunce gerrymandering state districts over the last 8 years for the purpose of gaining more seats by manipulating powerful voting blocks. The intention of the republican congress was to dilute these black swing districts because the typical %10 of black turnout would no longer have footholds as their power in numbers dwindle. But, now up to %90 black voters will go to the polls to vote for their candidates which was unforeseen by these crooked politicians.  So, like everything else dishonestly done by Bushco et al, it's backfiring now.

Both parties are capable of crooked gerrymandering. Jim Jones was protected for several elections by putting S.E. Tulsa and the northern parts of Bixby in Mike Synar's district.  Pretty obvious monkeyshines.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by FOTD




The irony sits with the republican congress and their Rovian Presidunce gerrymandering state districts over the last 8 years for the purpose of gaining more seats by manipulating powerful voting blocks. The intention of the republican congress was to dilute these black swing districts because the typical %10 of black turnout would no longer have footholds as their power in numbers dwindle. But, now up to %90 black voters will go to the polls to vote for their candidates which was unforeseen by these crooked politicians.  So, like everything else dishonestly done by Bushco et al, it's backfiring now.

Both parties are capable of crooked gerrymandering. Jim Jones was protected for several elections by putting S.E. Tulsa and the northern parts of Bixby in Mike Synar's district.  Pretty obvious monkeyshines.

The intent was not to neuter the black voting block in Muskogee County. Otherwise, you are correct. It was done to neutralize the mid town Tulsa republican block.

BTW, both these fine people were terrific public servants in contrast to the light weights we have today.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Originally posted by Red Arrow

Originally posted by FOTD



The intent was not to neuter the black voting block in Muskogee County. Otherwise, you are correct. It was done to neutralize the mid town Tulsa republican block.

BTW, both these fine people were terrific public servants in contrast to the light weights we have today.

Agreed it was done to neutralize the republican vote. It had nothing to do with blacks.

Obviously not everyone liked Jones or it wouldn't have been "necessary" to gerrymander the district.  Synar wasn't any better.  We obviously have a different view of the quality of their service.