Watching the Democratic debate in PA just now, I was really feeling for poor Barack Obama. They were, of course, asking him about the "religion and guns" thing, and he was trying to act like he welcomed the chance to explain what he meant to say, when obviously he welcomed it about as much as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And who can blame him?
Meanwhile, Hillary was trying not to jump up and down and hug herself with ersatz proletarian glee. Of course, when her turn came, she starts in with, "Well, I am the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton…"
This is totally unfair — who’d a thunk Mrs. Clinton would be anybody’s working class heroine? — but Mr. Obama did create the situation all by his lonesome.
Maybe he should make himself a note: In future, when running in a tight race in Pennsylvania, stay out of San Francisco…
Related Posts
Nah, I still like Lennon’s version better.
Hillaryous!
She tries to make herself out to be a cross between Laura Engels and Annie Oakley. Roger McBride must be turning in his grave.
And Obama, without a log cabin for a home, tells how he lived on Food Stamps, and worked his way up to a $2,000,000 house bought by Mr. Resko.
Mr. Obama did create the situation all by his lonesome.
-Brad
No he didn’t. This is a 100% media creation. His words when put into context are nothing like what the MSM has twisted them into. It would be oh so easy to do the same thing with John McCain. Heck, this man who is supposed to be an expert on foreign policy doesn’t even know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. He made the same “gaffe” 3 times recently, once corrected by Joe Lieberman. Does the press even care about fairness in this campaign? It’s obvious to me that the press has become nothing but a propaganda tool for the GOP.
That was painful. Somebody better end this quickly if the Dems want to have a viable candidate.
While Obama sings this:
He went out tiger hunting with his elephanting gun.
In case of accidents he always took his mom.
He’s the All-American, bullet-headed Saxon mother’s son.
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill?
And makes amends with this:
Happiness is a warm gun.
When I feel my finger on your trigger,
I know nobody can do me no harm.
Mother Superior jumped the gun.
Bungalow Bill himself can chortle out this:
She’s not a girl who misses much,
Do do do do do do- oh yeah.
She’s well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand
Like a lizard on a window pane.
Because he is:
The man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors
On his hobnail boots,
Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy
Working overtime.
And keeps pointing us to:
A soap impression of his wife which he ate
And donated to the National Trust.
She herself, the woman wronged, who has experienced so much while actually doing so little of benefit to anyone, can step on these lines:
I need a fix ’cause I’m going dow,n
Down to the bits that I left uptown.
I need a fix cause I’m going down.
And I offer this with apologies to Mr. Lennon:
You think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you can’t see the forest for the leaves on the tree.
If you wanna be a hero, then just be like me
If you wanna have real heroes, then vote GOP.
mr. bud, the press giveth and the press taketh away. They created Obama (ooh, finally, an electable black Democrat; we can be clever and classless and free) but then realized their mistake (God damn America, Resko, Pentagon bomber in the inner circle), so they’re turning on Obama without unendorsing him.
It’s their way of telling the two sides of the story without realizing what a two-faced bunch their inconsistent sermonizing makes them appear.
We have $4/gallon gasoline. Heating oil prices in the stratosphere. An endless occupation of Iraq. People are losing their homes because of unscrupulous lenders. Health care is not only unaffordable but increasingly ineffective in making Americans live longer. College education is becoming out of reach for many Americans. Katrina victims continue to be ignored. (This started when Bush visited John McCain to celebrate his birthday. Did the Senator from Arizona suggest to Bush that maybe he should tend to the hurricane issue. Of course not). Osama Bin-Laden runs free. Afghanistan festers as the Taliban rises. North Korea remains defiant. Greenhouse gases go unabaited.
This has occurred under the utterly incompetent administration of one George W. Bush. A major accomplise in this downward spiral has been the United States congress. And of course one of the co-conspirators in this crime against America has been our very own straight-talk express enabler – John McCain.
So what does the press talk about? Obama’s preacher, Obama’s alleged gaffes and Hillary’s various trivial comments. Why doesn’t the press talk about the issues? The answer is clear, the press wants an election-year contest, not a landslide. By assisting John McCain they balance the scales in a way no honest discussion of issues ever could. This has to be one of the most diabolical scheme for ratings ever concocted. But that’s the only explaination that makes sense. Shame on the American press!
I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Don’t all working class politicians lend their campaigns 5 million dollars ?
Father,
The line is,”Down to the “bitch” that I left uptown”.
Bless me,for I have sinned.
Obama’s preacher of 20 years, and mentor, is an a bitter hater of Americanism, just like so many other socialists and communists who have been major influences in Barak Obama’s personal world view:
his father – socialist, racist
his mother – socialist hippie
Frank Marshall – Communist Party
Saul Alinsky – socialist agitator
Bill Ayers – terrorist bomber
Bernadine Dorn – terrorist bomber
Angela Davis – terrorist
Malcom X
Louis Farakan
Those of you who suspect that there’s an actual flesh-and-blood real-life story of the remarkable woman who was Barack Obama’s mother, irreducible to a cartoonish phrase like “socialist hippie,” I recommend checking this out.
I think Lee’s two word summaries are all I need to know, thank you. Occam’s Razor, people….
Hillary’s audience now is superdelegates. And they will have a very difficult decision to make because even though Obama is ahead in all the main indicators (popular votes, pledged delegates, states won), he is appearing increasingly unelectable by the day. How many Obama voters have buyer’s remorse?
Hillary could still win this. And if she doesn’t and Obama looks too unelectable, could Al Gore emerge as the consensus candidate?
But only if you use the term "win" loosely. A Pyrrhic victory is the best she’s likely to manage — she might stand bloody over the mangled body of her party before Labor Day, and then what?
And bud, get a grip (I could say the same to Lee, but I feel like you might be somewhat more likely to listen). "His words when put into context are nothing like what the MSM has twisted them into?"
Not really. I listened to his explanation last night, and it sounded to me like he meant to say what he did.
That doesn’t keep me from feeling sorry for him, the way questioners went on and on about that and other stuff, like the William Ayres thing. I got the feeling for awhile that George Stephanopoulos wanted to work in a Clinton administration again…
Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, announced this on Sunday:
The endorsement is not up on Obama’s website yet for some reason…
Was that endorsement made before meeting with Jimmuh Carter, or after?
Well, Mike, I’m sure that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad would heartily endorse George W. Bush for a third term if W were eligible.
Philip, you silly speculation is no match for Mike Cakora’s fact: Obama appeals to terrorists because he sympathizes with them.
That’s a horrible thing to say, Lee…even for you. Shame on you.
Lee,
There are those that blog that do not have the foresight or the knowledge of history that would make them able to think for themselves. When they read the liberal bias and hear the same repeated in the news programs on TV they must do a background check on the item at issue. Most of the time when you give the blogger the history and background of the subject matter they want to deny the entry of the information into their brain.
Do not stop the flow of the true facts because you might get through to a few that are the working class because there is no hope for the do-gooders. The only things that will save this great nation are thinkers like you.
I didn’t say that Obama sympathizes with terrorists.
Terrorists said it.
Communist Party claims connections to Barack Obama:
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks were posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.”
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that (Frank Marshall) Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man’s mentor, influencing Obama’s sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago. ”
– from an article, Columbia School of Journalism, March 18, 2008
Barack writes about Frank Marshall Davis as another of is “mentors” in his autobiography.
Good work, Lee. Keep up the cutting and pasting, or “thinking” as Slugger calls it.
Meanwhile, two more well-known stinking Commies just endorsed Obama: former Senators David Boren of Oklahoma and Sam Nunn of Georgia. What’s worse, they’ve agreed to join his national security advisory team. I see nothing but extremists, terrorist sympathizers, commies on Obama’s team, people like Nunn or Bill Richardson or Bob Casey. Goodness gracious, where will it stop???
I also heard that a babysitter who Obama’s mother used to hire in Hawaii turns out to have formerly been married to a man whose second cousin once met a woman who used to work as a music copyist for Aaron Copland, who as we all know was a Jewish homosexual Communist.
Maybe somebody a bit older out there can answer me: is this what the 1950’s were like?
I don’t see how endorsements of any Democrats offset the support Obama has from communists, terrorists and socialists. That reflects on the lack of character of anyone who would support Obama, knowing his lifelong connections to the Communist Party.
In the 1950s, a lot of Stalinists were outed, but most politicians in both parties were veterans of WWII or Korea, patriotic and anti-communist. Today, young people have no appreciation of how reactionary and murderous socialists were then.
This is in case you folks did not read this article in The State today.
Subject: Emailing: The State 04-18-2008 Obama’s tumble.htm
Posted on Fri, Apr. 18, 2008
Obama’s tumble
By DAVID BROOKS
The New York Times
Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new -an unconventional
leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and
unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire
and entered general election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man
would have become that.
But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed.
Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama
has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs,
evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He
claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun
control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations
about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously
condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context,
but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over
his 100 years in Iraq comment.
Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of
someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.
He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody
making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible
to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also
make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks,
health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to
deliver.
Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16
months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what conditions will be
like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said
that he aims to bring the troops home, but will make a judgment at the time.
Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully
implemented for another three years.
If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge – in which case
he would destroy his credibility – or he will risk genocide in the region
and a viciously polarizing political war at home.
Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos
are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah
Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a
president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or
not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s
windsurfing or John Edwards’ haircut as clues about shared values.
When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could
understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months,
things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde
Park in Chicago.
Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are
those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and
liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James
Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about
working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are
going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and
he has done so poorly up to now.
It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to
an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll
win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in
Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now
beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own
party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.
General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama
is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high
school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he
does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have
estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White
House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over
the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.
A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down,
and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long
assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their
party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in
November. Everybody’s miserable.
.Mr. Brooks is a former editor at The Weekly Standard
Slugger, in future just copy the address line of the weblink, then, where you want it to go in the comment, type
mark
then write the text that will be highlighted for the link, such as
David Brooks’ column
and immediately (no space) put this symbol
You’ll be all set.
whoops, the html ate up my symbols. my directions will make no sense. Mike C, you’re good at explaining this stuff, can you help?
Phillip, you’re doing a great job here fighting the extremists. Keep up the good work. And I’d suggest web monkey’s html cheatsheet as an easy example of how to do the links.
Extremism for liberty is no vice.
Methinks that Lee actually means, “Extremism on behalf of capitalism is no vice.”
True liberty is not freedom to do as we want, but to do as we should. The latter involves the whole community, and involves more than just my right to do as I please.
Liberty is the condition of the individual.
That is why the collectivist double-speak of Herb Brasher is so unintelligible.
There can be no collective liberty without every individual having liberty, and that requires a government which keeps its nose out of their business. Free-market capitalism is he ONLY economic system which supports liberty, because it is based on the liberty to make decisions for oneself, to take risks, create wealth, and pass it on to our children.
Free-market capitalism is he ONLY economic system which supports liberty, because it is based on the liberty to make decisions for oneself, to take risks, create wealth, and pass it on to our children.
-Lee
There is no such thing as pure free-market capitalism, nor should there be. Free-market capitalism does not take into account the spillover effects of individual and corporate actions. In such a system as Lee proposes a company or individual could pollute the air or water as much as they like since these commodities are not owned by anyone.
So it’s clear that the community at large has a stake in creating public property and public property rights which are protected from the free-market capitalists who do not have an incentive to internalize the public costs of pollution. Hence government, in a socialistic sense, is needed to force companies to protect public property such as the air and water. Unless you believe companies should have unfettered freedom to pollute the air and water then you too are a socialist. My guess is we are all socialists to some extent.
So Lee here’s my question to you. Do you believe the government has a responsibility to protect the air we breath? YES or NO are your only options. If you answer yes, then you are a socialist. If you answer no you are an idiot.
Government has a responsiblity to protect my property rights to clean water and air.
There is a lot of rampant ignorance about how capitalism would allow unlimited pollution. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the early days of the Enlightenment and Industrial Age, enviromental laws were more strict than they are today. The common law had to be erased by legislation to permit more pollution.
Just look at the filthy dumping of waste in the USSR, East Germany, Red China, Cuba, etc. The socialists treated their natural environment just like they treated their people, as resources to be consumed for the benefit of the rulers.
Most of the issues today are phony, because 99% of the environmental problems in the US have been cleaned up since Nixon began in 1971. Socialists use the environment as cover to attack the US economy. Bureaucrats and academics use it to obtain cushy jobs and piles of grant money for useless research.
* 97% of the auto emissions of 1970 were eliminated by 1995. The remaining 3% are not a public danger, and you cannot eliminate 100% of emmissions.
* The biggest cause of gross volume of pollution is population increase, and 95% of that since 1970 has been due to immigration, mostly illegal. Yet the same people who profess to care about pollution are usually big defenders of the polluting hordes of illegal aliens.
Lee, your answer suggests you do believe the government should play a role in keeping our environment clean. Hence, by definition you are a socialist. Good to have you on board. If you like I can send you a tee shirt that says: “I’m a Socialist and Proud of it”.
bud, in your limited vision of politics, everything seems to be socialism or anarchy. Did you skip those years in school where they taught about democracy, republics, and the rest of reality?
Or did you think your crude attempt at reducio ad absurdum would pass for a way out of another debate you cannot handle?
* 97% of the auto emissions of 1970 were eliminated by 1995. The remaining 3% are not a public danger, and you cannot eliminate 100% of emmissions.
-Lee
The auto companies didn’t do that voluntarily. The government mandated polution controls.
Of course the remaining 3% is a public danger. That statement is just plain ridiculous. The greenhouse gases alone are a threat. And we can eliminate even more. But we have to give up our huge SUVs and coal fired power plants.
Hi Bud,
Did you know that the oil companies are the ones that developed the additives (MTBE) to reduce pollution? All the mandates that the socialist pass to prevent global warming, only increase the amount of money that the oil company makes. Now the farmers are into the act by producing ethanol from food stuff and this is added to the gas instead of the MTBE and the car does not get as much efficiency from the engine. MTBE pollutes groundwater. Ethanol does not but it leaves people in the world without food.
When we turn food into gas and reduce the supply of food we only increase the price of most food items. This has not decreased the price of gas at the tank (which was the purpose to begin with). Ethanol is an idiots way of trying to solve our oil crisis.
Maybe we need to change our form of government and hire someone that has the expertise to advise those idiots in Senate and House what they should and should not perpetrate on the people.
Sometime I think that if you took all the heads in Washington and put them in a sack and shake them up, you probably would not come out with a knowledgeable brain.
Currently we have two candidates (Hillary and Obama) and they are trying to complete everyone’s wish list that has a vote. What is it about the state of the economy of the US that they do not understand?
Oh. Well. Another day and another dollar gone down the gas tank. Happy driving.
Correction, slugger – Obama and Hillary are not pandering to the wish lists of honest, patriotic Americans. They are counting on the fact that only 16% of Americans pay income taxes, and that 50% depend on a government check.