Hey Obama. What Flavor is the Kool Aid?
By Larry Johnson on January 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM in Current Affairs
You know where I stand. I believe with every fiber of my being that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President. Two undistinguished years as a Senator and being a “nice” guy in the Illinois state legislature are laughable, yet this guy is getting serious attention. I’m just waiting for Obama to decide to take his followers to Guyana. He reminds me of Jim Jones, the famous San Francisco preacher who led his congregation to their deaths in the jungles of Guyana.
“Oh, Larry,” you say, have you gone over the edge? Well, take a look at this and tell me what you think:
I’ve been blessed to hear many great orations. I was in the audience when Howard Dean gave his famous address challenging the Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to principle. I have heard Bill Clinton speak of a place called Hope, and listened to John Edwards bravely channel the populism that American politics so often suppresses. Some of those politicians mirrored my beliefs better than Obama does. Some of their speeches were more declarative and immediate in their passion. But none achieve quite what Obama, at his best, creates.
Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.
That friends, is the well-respected Ezra Klein. Jesus Fucking Christ!!! “Triumph of word over flesh?” Great, we now have the black Jesus. When do we get the sermon on the mount (blessed are the peacemakers. . .) and I wonder what kind of loaves and fishes he’ll be serving?
Unfortunately, this kind of adoration is all too common. Seemingly sane, common sense folks are going weak in the knees, and likening Obama to the reincarnation of John and Bobby Kennedy combined. But this honeymoon will end. Democrats can only hope the realities of Obama’s true record and personality are exposed before the primary season ends. Otherwise, you can count on the Republicans retaining the White House. Jim Jones’ kool-aid killed his followers. The Barack Obama version will kill the Democrats if folks keep chugging this stuff down.
Obama does not remind me of Jim Jones but who ever is in charge of the Obamarama spin machine must have worked for the Bush administration or studied with Karl Rove. So much media hooey
The analogy holds. I have observed glazed eyes, and irrational celebrity adoration given to this rather wan man with no ideas and a guy who we saw today who pandered to 2 uberrightwing papers in NV.
Mr. Democracy told us how transformational and wonderful Ronald Reagan was. Yes, even more than Bill Clinton, and of course Nixon. Like the comparison?
Mr. Obama it seems is a stinker. He’s not much of a Democrat as he heads into Reagan country and awaits any votes he can find in California no matter what he has to say or do.
This is what the bling followers do not see. Actually they want to be redeemed and delivered. White guilt. Black pride. Hillary hate. Bush rage.
What a cocktail, but he’s getting everybody drunk on it!
Personally, I have a hangover already seeing the Pied Piper Syndrome in full sway.
It is, essentially, the same group that bought into Rove, and Bush, buying the image, the glamour, and the fantasy, as opposed to the truth.
They have a need to be rescued from the mundane, much like the middle aged man needing to reaffirm himself in the eyes of a twenty year old woman, say. They are hooked on the way Obama makes them feel, the excitement, the attention, the sense of uniqueness they are other wise unfamiliar with, comes to fruition when they see themselves as part of brand Barry.
I read somewhere Obama’s handlers intended to sell an image of Obama, because his record was so weak.
And they are, it’s the equivalent of ” what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” giving the consumer a feeling of exclusiveness.
But strip that glamour, referring to Obama as ordinary “Barry,” say, and the excitement, the hipness factor goes.
Again, if the consumer ignores the lesson of Bush, they deserve Barry.
You know how fickle Hollywood is…
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Does Karl Rove run an “Advanced Slimy Tactics” course at a college/university somewhere? Too many of Obama’s tactics seem to come directly from that playbook.
You are seeing the work of Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe, and David Axelrod in Obama.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/134458/142
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663
http://www.akpmedia.com/partners/dplouffe.html
http://www.akpmedia.com/partners/daxelrod.html
all you have to do is ask an Obama supporter “why” they support Obama? They generally go blank for a few seconds…like a zombie and then start repeating he is the candidate of “hope” the “agent of change”. Then when you ask for proof…sparks start coming out of their ears….they have generally blown a fuse.
It is frightening!
The reapeat, over and over again the same litany. He’s eintelligent, His stellar record as a community organizer, he makes everyone ‘feel good’, He gives us hope.
There should be some concern of the phenomenon that creates such a cult, and that presupposes female submission to such a cult.
White guys seem to be losing their touch, and it’s fairy obvious that white women never had one to begin with - at least, with other women.
When all God’s children defer to a different God, does God still exist?
Let’s contrast that to Hillary Clinton’s “real” record: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . unless you consider being the wife of a President experience. And if you do, where are the accomplishments during those 8 glorious years of Bill Clinton that qualifies either one of them as change agents? Healthcare - nothing. Energy - nothing. The economy - let’s not forget the dot.com and NASDAQ crash along with all those corporate scandals that took place during their watchful eyes.
Also what great legislative accomplishments has she had since being handed Moynihan’s seat 7 years ago that qualifies her as a “change agent?”
Markom,
susan has already provided reams of evidence, but try this. On a sheet of paper list every hearing Obama has chaired while in the Senate and then list the hearings chaired by Hillary.
Then, look at the follow up investigations and legistlation produced from said hearings. Hillary kicks Obamas ass on that score. Not even close.
Markom,
If you really want to see her votes go to Washington Post online click politics, then Congress. All senate votes and bills , details are there. See Obama’s there too.
Bio her on Google. She has had a distinguished life if you can stand it. Seems you’ve done this before and don’t want to see the facts.. If so, why bother? Just don’t vote for her.
I will be voting for Hillary Clinton should she be nominated.
So you would have to admit that the only real accomplishment of this election is that Dems are NOT putting up a “D” student from Yale this time.
Is it worth even showing up for the primary for a battle between lightweight legislatures - one with slightly more experience than the other? Sorry, but I am not buying this shared experience fog by Hillary. But if she is trying to create this myth of “35 years experience” she did have 8 years in the White House and if you look at a list of their admitted accomplishments there is zero about energy and zero about healthcare. In fact most of the major accomplishments were GOP initiatives that they had no choice but try totake credit for.
Sorry, but I can’t get excited by either one of these so-called “change agents” who have not changed anything in public policy nor have they run anything during their “illustrious” careers.
One more comment to that reply . . . .
So we are to choose among a 1+ term Senator, a Senator who served only 1 term, and a Senator who has less than one term and spent most of that running for President.
Gone are the really qualified: Dodd, Biden, and Richardson.
The only ones drinking the Kool Aid are everyone in the party who really believe we have this great choice of “rock stars.”
You have some solid points. “Gone are the really qualified. Dodd, Biden, Richardson”
Sadly if that was the only threshold we wouldn’t be in this pickle barrel.
Are you implying that GWB had any real experence credentials before assuming office? Or that he had anything more than a “D” average at Yale as Kerry did?
I am upset that Iowa and N.H. have determined who I can and cannot vote for in the primary. Why do we have to settle for the lesser of evils and not for the most qualified who may not be “rock stars?”
Now days it is not about being the most qualified or the context of the Debate would be different.
It seems to me more about maintaining the edifice of an illusion as to where “power” resides in this country.
Will that be Kosher or Dill?
Where can this information be found?
I suggest you access all her voting records in Senate on Washington Post online…go to politics/congress. Compare them to Obama’s.
Then Google her Bio and her distinguished record in civil rights, childrens rights, and enacting protectionist law for children, and much more from her roots as a “Goldwater Girl” to her transformation at Wellsey. Her commencement speech at Wellsey remains relevant and inspiring to this day.
Her Bio can also be augmented from letters The New York Times published written by Hillary during Wellsley period to her friends.
You really no nothing about her. She voted for progressive bill amendments that Obama voted against. Can also be seen in WashPost online.
“her distinguished record in civil rights, childrens rights, and enacting protectionist law for children”
Yeah? Tell that to the children of Iraq. Tell that to the children of Serbia. Tell that to the children of Palestine, and especially of Ghazza. Tell that to the children of Lebanon. They will be terribly glad to hear about her distinguished record in protecting children and their rights.
I’m waiting to hear from Hillary’s mentor. Marion Wright Edleman (Children’s Defense Fund) stopped speaking to her years ago.
Great points!
So if I give a good speech at my commencement exercise does that qualify me as President.
Her record is smoke and mirrors and expects people to buy into it.
If she uses her husband’s records then there are no substantive accomplishmentsone should own up to other than smoke and mirrors.
And if you are using her voting record then there are 50 Senators all equally qualified to be President. What substantive legislation did she (not Chuck Schumer who has been doing ALL the NYS work)create - not attach her name to - not just vote for?
Apparently you don’t think the S-CHIP bill was important? Hillary was a leader in getting that passed.
There is a reason that conservative upstate New York reelected Hillary by an overwhelming margin. They know she has been an effective Senator, working hard to promote economic growth in that economically depressed region.
Hillary has worked for years on issues like education and child health. In Arkansas she successfully spearheaded a badly needed education reform bill, among many other things.
As for Bill, he was severely handicapped by the huge debt that had been run up by Reagan and Bush and yet he managed to turn this debacle around and put us on the road to fiscal health. That is no small thing, considering the unbelievable attacks that were being made on him (pre Monica, too) and the compliance of our media with these far right assaults. Under him, our economy was strong and it was not all because of a bubble. We were respected in the world. According to Richard Clarke, he was taking terrorism very seriously unlike his predecessors.
S-Chip was orignally a Ted Kennedy/Orin Hatch bill that happened to be during the Clinton administration. What does Hillary have to do with it? In addition S-Chip is a band-aid for a much larger problem that was not addressed during Clinton’s 8 years. If Hillary is running on being a change agent and taking liberties with taking credit for events during her husband’s administration, then where was the “change” in healthcare?
Regarding the economy, Clinton had a conservative Congress that forced him to deal with the deficit, forced him to deal with welfare reform, and foreced him to approve NAFTA.
Bottom line. Hillary has little experience and is no change agent as she contends.
as far as her election, she was up against “nobodys” and there never was even contest for her original nomination. The workhorse for NYS has been and continues to be Chuck Schumer who wroks very hard while Hillary takes credit for things she has no or little part of.
Chuck Schumer who works very hard …
Can you tell me why he would suggest the current AG?
Schumer originally had Mukasey on his list of recommendations to the President. Therefore he was in no position to go back on his word over the issue of waterboarding.
What does Teddy say?
President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.
While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial.
“She wasn’t a legislator, she didn’t write the law, and she wasn’t the president, so she didn’t make the decisions,” says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. “But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/06/clinton_claims_credit_for_child_program/
I guess maybe you would also say Eleanor Roosevelt had no hand in integrating the US armed forces. It was all the work of Harry Truman???
This is classic Clinton revisionism. Did ted Kennedy say that in 1997 or when Hillary ran for Senate? No he conveniently said it last year when she was running for President.
I think we can agree that many 20th century first ladies were influential in their husband’s administration to certain degrees. That does not entitle them to blanket credit for anything that happened at that time without recorded confirmation of that.
OT Larry Air America talk show host Ed Schultz and Richard Greene are going to town with O’Reilly’s comments about “show me the Vets under bridges” comments that O’Reily made. We know that Edwards has consistently brought our attention to over the last year.
Keith Olberman also put out the big “house them or shut up” challenge to O’Reilly. These challenges are sure to last for days now.
I am sure Klein has been drinking SOMETHING, to have written that piece. I am not sure it is Obama’s fault he did… and I do agree with you Larry, that it is crazy to even try to compare Obama to some kind of saviour or something. America, and people like Klein do nothing to help the American people find the best candidate, when they drool so slovenly over any one of them. All have faults as well as good qualities. My personal thoughts on Obama are that he is an exceptional orator, and has many admirable qualities, but he is not yet seasoned, or experienced enough. His time has not yet come. Perhaps a VP candidate, and maybe 8 years from now, a WH bid…
Lady,
Obama is playing to win.
Leading The Village By Their Collective Snouts
by tristero
Like Digby, I am puzzled - and appalled - by Obama invoking Reagan as some kind of icon of positve change. It’s like an aspiring surgeon saying he wants to follow in the bloody footsteps of Jack the Ripper, even if surely he disagrees with some of Saucy Jack’s procedures.
But Obama isn’t stupid, so he clearly is no Reaganite. Therefore, I am entertaining the possibility that perhaps this is an extremely clever rhetorical strategy on Obama’s part, complete with a dog whistle to people like you and me. Surely Obama knows modern rhetoric better than any other American politician and most cultural observers. So I think this may be a plausible explanation of what he’s up to:
Obama believes the country isn’t in love with conservative ideas per se. But both the voters - but especially the press - loved the way Reagan packaged them.
That is what I think Obama is saying - Republicans win merely on packaging, not on widespread support of their ideas. And he thinks he can win very wide support simply by associating liberal/moderate ideas with an updated version of Reagan’s manufactured persona. Going even further with this, Obama is addressing not “the American people” directly, but the people who serve as the mediator between politicians and the people, ie, The Village. This makes sense. After all, The Village are the ones who first have to accept and then spread a politician’s manufactured persona. As for Reagan’s conservatism, Obama understands that The Village neither knows or cares very much about that, beyond a few short slogans - “death tax, partial-birth abortion,” yadda yadda. In other words,
Obama is trying to appropriate the Reagan-Love that The Village feels - and by extension, felt by the voters they influence - for himself.
It doesn’t matter that it’s all illusion. By co-opting not the legacy of Reagan but simply his image within The Village, Obama makes it difficult for Republicans to paint themselves without a fight as the only heirs of the cheerful, confident, can-do America that Reagan’s myth says he was.
Now, we know Reagan was nothing like his image, And Obama knows we know. That’s the dog whistle. His Reagan-loving is just bait for a corrupt press corps fixated on images and perceptions. He is playing their own game against them, and he is much smarter than they.
A caveat: Obama truly is a genius at talking in a manner which makes you think he’s saying what you hope he’s saying. So I could be wrong and a President Obama could be Reagan-lite, God help us. But whatever Obama is up to here, I hope he knows what he’s doing. Despite his image, Reagan was a catastrophically bad president, the worst in my lifetime until Bush (and then his son).
Reagan is no one to hold up as an example to Democrats without a damn good reason. That is why I supect Obama has one.
This is all part of the overarching desire to be a rich African American millionaire/billionaire Oprah clone. A
Oprah has long been a closeted Republican.
Republican African Americans pride themselves in that they are not seen as “victims”. Condy Rice, Colin Powell are the role models along with corporate heavies.
And this is bad because?
Norris,
If Obama and Michelle had this desire they would have made other choices after law school.
Next try?
I have tried to watch her program a few times and can never figure out what all the hooplah is about. Wish she would put someone on the cover of her magazine besides herself (yawn)
After watching Obama’s performance today in praise of the great transformational Ronald Reagan from his endorserments from the Right Wing Press of Nevada, it will be even harder for me to figure out the drooling masses. Or Klein.
Klein is Arianna Huffington’s henchman/hitman for Hillary. Huffington Post is totally biased regarding Hillary, and skews everything to Obama’s advantage.
Before becoming a “progressive” Arianna arrrived in New York from Oxford, England as a full fledged conservative. Very conservative. After going to NY parties, writing a book on Picasso, Arianna married Mr. Huffington, a mutimillionaire conservative. Mr.H. ran for congress as a conservative, and Arianna hit the campaign trail with him. Mr. Huffington lost his bid. She had two daughters, and Arianna and Mr. H. divorced.
Fast forward to Gore vs. Bush. Arianna morphed into a “progressive” and shreiked that Gore and Bush were alike. Her support of Ralph Nader was intense, and she took every opportunity to trash Gore and tell us Nader was the only way. Gore was even worse than Bush and to hell with Democrats…vote Green Party.
Before creating HuffingtonPost, Arianna ran for Governor in California against Schwarznegger along with 500 other people.
Bingo…….HuffPo is born and Obama’s the guy!
Hillary is to be hated, shunned, revilled.
Arianna has Klein as one of her hitmen. He consistently disses Hillary no matter what. What is she really about and what are her politics?
Only The Shadow knows.
Boy are you right about the Huffington Post. Arianna is a gadfly. I think she particularly dislikes Hillary because Hillary is where she aspired to be. Arianna clearly had her eye on a larger prize than just wife of the Governor of California. She and hubby were rising stars until he decided to come out of the closet.
When Arianna was recently on Air America’s Mark Greens program “7 days in America” just after Iowa. Green, Huffington and Gary Hart all ignored Edwards second place finish. The few words Arianna had to say about Edwards were basically about how he should drop out.
Katrina from the Nation really tried to be fair and balanced about the candidates, but Mark Green swept her efforts right under the “progressive” (cough, cough) rug.
LOL! Hmmmmmmm…maybe Jim Jones did work for the CIA. LOL!
it’s funny that lj makes that reference, but i guess it takes one to know one…
“As the massacre unfolded, Jones can be heard on a tape recording yelling, “Get Dwyer out of here!” Richard Dwyer was later found at the airstrip, methodically washing his hands. In 1968, Dwyer was listed in the publication Who’s Who in the CIA. When asked if the allegation was true, he replied, “No comment.”
God. I was joking. Wow.
Hmmmmmmmm…
After receiving complaints lodged by relatives of cult members, Congressman Leo Ryan visited Jonestown on November 18, 1978 to investigate allegations of human rights abuses. Congressman Ryan, a noted CIA critic, had authored the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which would have required the CIA to disclose to Congress — in advance — details of all covert operations. The State department offered Ryan no answers or assistance, despite numerous inquiries. He arrived with U.S. embassy official Richard Dwyer, as well as some journalists. Among the reporters was Tim Reiterman, who had covered the Patty Hearst story for the San Francisco Examiner.
In all likelihood, Ryan already suspected what was really going on at Jonestown. That was when all hell broke loose.
At the airstrip, Leo Ryan soon became the first congressman to die in the line of duty, along with four reporters. (The Hughes-Ryan Amendment was killed in Congress soon afterwards.) The assassins were described by witnesses as “glassy eyed,” “mechanically-walking zombies,” and “devoid of any emotion.” Dwyer and Reiterman were also shot. Soon after that, the mass slaughter began. A plausible explanation for the events that unfolded is that Jim Jones (or someone else) ordered the murders after Ryan’s unexpected visit threatened to expose what was happening. In the chaos that followed, a mass extermination was carried out.
http://conspiracypage.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/jonestown/
Two things:
1)This ends with:
Is that night November 4th? Or a night of drinking?
2) Won’t the morning after be awkward?
Your point is not lost on me Larry.
Taters,thanks for calling what it is.
swordsscimitars…Larry, it would be great if Obama would do the same.
Thank you Larry! It is always refreshing to read what you have to say as it is raw and no-nonsense.
It is very easy to get lost on what Obama says as he is quite an orator, but that is where it all stops. Haven’t we had enough bullshit already? When do we learn in this country? Personally, Obama gives me the creeps. He’s just too polished, too pristine, too neat, and pretty to be real. Where’s the beef?
He’s packaged, creepy, opportunistic and his politics are far more to the right than Edwards or Hillary.
He is a product of the Pritzker Billions machine in Chicago, and his donors [large ones] are heavy corporate,nuclear,healthcare, etc. Hyatt Hotels. S&L’s….
His Bio can be found re: voting record carefully hidden on Google, and Washington Post will give you his voted in US Senate.
Some of his votes are even creepier. He is a lightweight who has limited experience and no outstanding track record as a legiislator.
He orates with preacher passion, and this is very hypnotic when we see the crowds on Preacher TV.
I find him thin in experience and vague on substance. He is no way qualified for this very daunting job. His background reveals inconsistencies about his so called votes and/or positions.
Rezko’s Connection with Obama. Long story short; Obama bought his house for $300,000 less then Market Value. He buys the adjacent land for $500,500 less than the previous purchase price. Obama knew Rezko was under indictment at the time of his real estate purchases. He also knew Rezko was under Federal Investigation, when he accepted money from Rezko for his Senatorial Campaign., This is eerily similar to the beginning of the list of crimes in the Wilkes/Duke Cunningham affair.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1
Has anyone checked out the amount of down payment, mortgage, Real Estate Taxes etc on Obama’s Illinois house? What about Obama’s housing in DC? The figures don’t seem to add up to be affording so much real estate. Does an Illinois Senator make enough to buy a 1.6 million dollar home, less that one year after becoming a US Senator who started at about $165,000 per year?
Where’s the beef?
I think the question these days is not where but “Is the cloned beef safe to eat?”
So Obama is fawning and gushing over Reagan to pander to the right? The ersatz Gipper who introduced the term/adjective “homeless” into our American vocabulary. Perhaps he’s fondly recalling people pushing shopping carts with all their worldy belongings in numbers previously unseen or imagined. Reaganomics? Reagan said deficits don’t matter. Anyone believe that bullshit? Is he (Obama) out of his mind? It must really be a pain in the ass to wake up every day and constantly defend this clown. He simply is not a leader. And the “I’m a uniter, not a divider” theme has already been perpetrated in another playbook.
Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
I’ll bet you our veterans would really appreciate a functioning government that is there to help. This same kind of thinking led to the tragegy of Walter Reed. Katrina. The mining disaters. Poison from China. Not heeding the ‘Bin Laden determined to strike in US’ daily briefing.
A contempt of government will not allow one to govern properly. The next POTUS is is really going to need to do some heavy lifting to get us out of this mess.
Now what kills me is we have some bozos slamming Bill Clinton’s presidency - fair enough - but while their candidate of choice is hearting rightwingers with their make believe hero??? (That means Reagan to you Obama supporters)
Why do I often get the idea that many Obama supporters are incapable of nuanced thinking and may very well have previously voted for Sanjaya? And many of them seem to share a more than healthy dose of contempt for history.
They should be glad est isn’t recruiting anymore.
With apologies to former est folks…
Amen Larry. I was on the Obama train for awhile, until I kept hearing his supporters say “he inspires me” which began to sound like the liberal version of “i’d like to have a beer with him…” I took a second look at Hillary and haven’t looked back. Obama’s vague message of “hope” and “unity” has no translation into the real world of governing, and the longer this goes on, the more painfully obvious it becomes…it simply astonishes me that intelligent people whom I respect can’t see it and have completely abandoned their critical thinking skills and gone for the cult of personality. Some of these people are as bad as the Bush cultists from a few years ago. I thought our side was smarter than that…oh well what a surprise.
Maybe you ought to take a third look at Hillary, and then look beyond the Hillary/Obama duality at a third person?
Hillary, the great humanitarian and protector of children, has Madeleine “the price (of half a million dead Iraqi children under five years old) is worth it” Albright as her foreign policy advisor. Madeleine, I have learned today has jumped on the “let’s divide Iraq into three parts, against the will of 98% of its citizens” bandwagon (why is that not surprising?), which means that it is almost certain to be Hillary’s policy. After all, what is ignoring the will of all but a tiny percentage of Iraqis, breaking up a few million Iraqi families, and displacing a few millions more Iraqis, who have lived together with normal relations for centuries, when it comes to doing what the empress and her court have decided?
I also have a report (unconfirmed by me at present) that Madeleine “who cares about Iraqi children?” Albright (whom I personally saw hiding by lying on the back seat of her SUV as the moral coward fled the very effective extemporaneous, and very eloquent verbal onslaught of twenty-one-year-old Palestinian-American UC Berkeley valedictorian Fadia Rafidi’s response to her keynote address to the graduates) recommends (in addition to dividing Iraq, against the will of its citizens, into three ethno-sectarian parts) maintaining a force of some 40-60,000 or so for who knows how long. And why not? After all, it would be a shame to waste all those billions of dollars spent on very American military bases there. I mean, what use have Iraqis for miniature golf courses, bowling alleys, Pizza Huts, and Burger Kings?
do you have a link to Albright’s address and the response from Rafidi. I will go looking.
I have heard Albright say diplomacy diplomacy with Iran.
she was on C-span’s Washington Journal recently and when someone called in and said that Jimmy Carter was a bigot and anti-semite…Albright disagreed but then went onto to criticize Carter’s book “Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid”
Those oil pipe lines from Kirkuk to Haifa are critical
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&sw=Haifa+Mosul
Rudy G was the home to “remove them” from the streets of NYC. I remember seeing an old women taken away after she froze too death one winter night by Union and 14th. It was right out of a Dostoevsky novel.
The ersatz Gipper who introduced the term/adjective “homeless” into our American vocabulary
What flavor does a lie taste like?
OT:
Not a word of criticism’ before or after destruction of waterboarding videos.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22712048/
What is the difference?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-gains-access-to-big-dollars-through-kerrys-endorsement-2008-01-18.html
I don’t know what the difference is since I’ve heard from friends who were on Kerry’s list that they are now receiving emails from the Obama campaign. And they are pissed.
I got my first e-mail from Barack the day after the Kerry endorsement. I was heavily invested in Kerry.
I would be as well.
Invoking the mantle of The Addled Puppet Reagan may be effective for a time, but does little to protect Obama from his own and his staff’s screw-ups. There’s not a Democrat in Nevada who considers the Las Vegas Review-Journal anything but a mullet wrapper and house organ for the casino moguls and mining bosses who run the Silver State.
The Publisher of the R-J, about 3 months ago, ran a piece detailing the delightful lunch he had with Matt Drudge, and recommended The Drudge Report to all his readers.
Why would Obama, or any other Democrat, even cross the threshold of this paper or the other rag in Reno?
Gross stupidity?
I fall back on previous statements:
1. Obama will run out his string by 15 April or so;
2. The Magic Negro act will wear thin;
3. He is little more than Harry Belafonte with a J.D.
Absent a handler of the caliber of the late Lynn Nofziger, Obama is toast. He just hasn’t, “popped up,” yet.
I haven’t seen this many normally rational people turned to drooling idiots since the days of Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh…
probably the same people.
Fred,
Your girl isn’t going to win.
Bill Clinton is obviously playing a larger role in Hillary’s campaign.
Imagine that Hillary wins.
Either Bill will play a huge role in her administration, in which case the citizenry will be subjected to tedious hours of recapitulation of the clinton marriage/Monica/Bill is really the unelected president yadda yadda; or he will not play a significant role in her administration in which case the citizenry will be subjected to tedious hours of psychobabble relating to the Clinton Marriage and the structural flaws within it that have forced Hillary to cage Bill.
Either way she handles Bill’s role in her administration, will be a no win situation for her and the American populace. Can she nominate him to the Supreme Court, to the UN Ambassadorship, to head the DOJ? Does one expect the Senate to easily advise and consent to Bill holding any high appointed office? He is not the Bill Clinton of the 90’s, he is a modestly wealthy pal of the Bushes now. ( wasn’t his first suggestion that Hillary would use he and Bush 41 to solve the world’s problems? Surely Bush 41 used Bill to give bipartisan appeal to the Boxing Day tsunami relief but that shoe will not go on the other foot. Bush 41 is not about to give Hillary bipartisan support for anything substantive. )
If she wins, it will be all about Bill for the 4 years she serves, if she loses it will be Bill’s fault if he continues to function as he has the last two weeks.
I heard the name Monica Lewinsky when I woke up this morning. I won’t be voting for Hillary and Bill.
I’ve had enough of those cretins.
with you. I heard David Gergen on some news program report that when the Insurance companies offered Hillary a compromise on her Health care plan back in the early 90’s she refused to negotiate. Instead of being willing to be satisfied with incremental steps her whole plan was shut out.
The 2002 war resolution vote combined with her yes vote on the Kyl Lieberman amendment was just too much warmongering for me.
her whole plan was shut out.
And this won’t happen to Edwards or Obama?
With Edwards yes unless a whole lot of currently sitting dems are replaced in this election with much more liberal dems.
With Obama no as he will not offer anything much beyond pablum and uplifting bloviation.
With Hillary nothing will change, it will be Bush in a female power suit until Bush 45 wins in 2012. The law of political inertia will hold. There will be no grand changes in foreign or domestic policies under Hillary or Obama or Edwards. The troops will stay in Iraq, the fleets will stay in the Gulf, the Special forces will operate in the Pakistan provinces. As soon as the subprime lending mess works its wiles, redlining will again be used as a club to force new subprime lending.
So, who is, Cee? Obama? Heaven forbid! Edwards? Doesn’t look very hopeful. And in November? Which Republican are we going to end up with?
Ron Paul of course. The only republican who can beat any of the dems on foreign policy and domestic policy.
Before you guys became apoplectic about Obama and presidential politics, this weblog was a fascinating and important source for perspective on important policy issues.
Thank you for this article. Years ago a woman I knew told me an EST experience was just fabulous. After she kept nagging, I said, “Oh, all right” and went. I stuck it out just because I paid for it, but the whole time I kept wondering why these people were so vacant that they’d buy into this modern day prophet crap. The last night I was a few minutes late (a HUGE no-no) because my niece’s car broke down and she had a college final. The thug at the door started to bully me about it and I told him to shove it, that he wasn’t talking to an effing Manson chick.
Shocking
We used to refer to them as est holes in the Bay area. A buddy of mine went to a meeting of est in Marin county in the 70’s. He had only been back from VN for a few years and he was interested in someone (A young lady) who had dragged him there. It creeped him out and when they locked the doors and refused to let him leave, he punched his way out. I don’t think he saw her after that.
I knew a lady that went to EST and she was “snapped” mentally afterwards…she tried to get me to go…just like playin tunes on Market St. for change in the guitar case and getting invited by Moon’ys to dinner.
I just think he seems to ready to pander to conservatives to try and get votes, even on some pretty straight up and down issues that he really shouldn’t compromise on.
How does Obama feel about Reagan’s creation of the stereotypical black WELFARE QUEEN that he used over and over again?? (while, in reality, most on welfare were white).
What really bugs me is this “generational”/”cultural” CHANGE crap that is being shoved at us. Why does this hyped-up punditry and message from Mr. Change supplant having the courage to actually discuss POLICY which affects us all?? Isn’t this rather “divisive” politics rather than being uniting???
PS–sorry, I’m one of those “invested” in the fights of the 60-70’s.