The Reviews Are In, and They Ain’t Purty [Hysterical Update]
By SusanUnPC on April 27, 2008 at 10:54 AM in Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Fox News, Typical white person, White People
Sory, i’m just a typical white hick (but thankfully not a “typical white man”). But it shor beats being a deluded liberal who thinks that Barack Obama is the Second Coming. Or believing his bull about the Iraq War (and his “re-created” 2002 speech), or that he’ll really change America, or that he’s going to do a single thing for the middle class, or that he scarcely knows terrorists like William Ayers or partying with Nadhmi Auchi (and those questions are just so unfair), and on and on. His interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace today may begin to arrest the delusions about Obama.
[HYSTERICAL(ly) (funny) UPDATE: "Lefties Seething Over Obama on Fox." An amusing snippet: "a Kos Kid swears not to vote for Obama, now that he has Fox cooties on him."]
MyDD‘s Jerome Armstrong levels Obama in his review of Mr. Hope’s answers. If there’s still a single sober person left at the “orange place,” they must be tearing their hair out.
Obama literally gave Hillary his middle finger last week, but today he proverbially gave the DKos/TPM/HuffPo/Code Pink/MoveOn communities BOTH of his middle fingers. Obama did another Jay-Z today to cater to the Fox News viewers, dusting all of those far-left groups off his shoulder, just as he attempted to dust off Hillary’s legitimate challenges. But, first, this specific section is for you faithful No Quarter readers:
A shorter Obama: The far left? That’s over there, and I’m willing to take them on.
OBAMA: …In terms of capital gains, I’ve suggested we might go back up to 20 because -
WALLACE: You have suggested 28.
OBAMA: Well, but what I’ve said is, I certainly would not raise it higher than it was under Ronald Reagan.
This is an Obama classic, he mentioned 28, then saw that Clinton wouldn’t go that high, so now he’s revisioning all of what he said to a part of what he said, and specifically a part of what he said that overrules all of what he said because… well, when he first said 28 he didn’t know 28 was higher than what it was under Reagan, or something like that… Anyway, getting Reagan’s name as the one he’s following for guidance on the tax code is brownies on Fox. …
As I said, that quote above was for you sane No Quarter readers. And you all recall that Charlie Gibson had to school Obama on capital gains taxes in that last ABC debate just before the Pennsylvania primary. (It’s no wonder he’s running from any more debates. It must have been humiliating to be caught not knowing or having studied the issue of capital gains taxes — no matter how smart or Ivy League educated you are.)
And, no matter how often you are being compared, embarrassingly, to Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern or Michael Dukakis …
… I’ll wager that any of those three former presidential nominees, even if they all did get crushed in the general election, could have answered that question far better than you, and wouldn’t have had to have capital gains explained to them by a TV anchor.
The next part is for the delusional left:
Obama is trying to separate himself from the most strident parts of his base, and he does this pretty effectively throughout the interview:
OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.
WALLACE: Such as. Obama mentions deregulation of industry, charter schools, a new variation of merit pay.
WALLACE: But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, let’s be post-partisan, let’s all come together — just a couple of quick things, and I don’t really want you to defend each one, I just want to speak to the larger issue…
OBAMA: No, look, I think this is fair. I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.
During the Roberts -
WALLACE: John Roberts, Supreme Court.
OBAMA: John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights. …
There’s much more in Jerome’s “Obama on Fox transcript,” including a link to the transcript.
My brief two cents:
Karl Rove’s analyses on Fox News have been pretty damn smart. Except when he insists that Obama is a far left liberal. He’s about as liberal as my cat is a dog, or Larry is for Obama.
The truly scary part is that Obama stands for, essentially, nothing.
Obama stands for Obama.
His entire campaign has been premised on creating a cult-like adoration of him as a transformational figure.
The issues be damned.
That worked incredibly well for a rather long time. As po’ Barry himself has complained, this campaign has gone on so long that babies have started walking and talking since he began running for president. True enough, Barry. Thing is, that’s a GOOD thing.
Because perhaps — just perhaps — there’s a shot that even the most deluded of your followers will finally see that your entire David-Axelrod-invented campaign is based on people transferring their own “aspirations” onto you as somehow able to fulfill their own fantasies.
When people fall for a candidate because it flatters their own vanity, it is just not, um, good for the country, let alone the world.
When even MoDo isn’t liking what she’s seein‘ — and she sees that your magic glitter has worn off — you’ve gotta worry, Barry.
This magic pony just isn’t the real deal.
Obamabots, it’s time to stop shopping in toy section of the store.


















Pingback: The Reviews Are In, and They Ain’t Purty
Pingback: Iraq » The Reviews Are In, and They Ain’t Purty
Pingback: Tax » The Reviews Are In, and They Ain’t Purty
Pingback: The morons at No Quarter USA are at it again. - Why Choose Obama?
Pingback: GayPatriot » McCain’s feistiness in ‘08 like Truman’s in ‘48