"Obama is not a career politician."
Snorting the Kool-Aid dry. It's a shame. That's our toxic discourse (and not, really, the poster).
I mean, just because Obama's professional resume is short doesn't mean it's not a professional resume, right?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments



Front page


Comments
My personal favorite was on the debate night
Lament that CNN and MSNBC are too favorable to McCain:
http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/9/...
Also, do not pay any attention to that man in the corner:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...
Career campaigner
I could never figure out how people could say Hillary was soooooooo ambitious, but not Obama. Obama ran for state office in 1996. He began running for higher office in about 1999, two+ years after he first attained office. He started his Senate campaign in 2003 and his presidential campaign in 2006. That's a resume of someone who doesn't seem to care about learning to do a job right--ive talked to faculty in charge of hiring committees who said that would send a lot of red flags. It also reeks of ambition on a level that I hardly see in politics.
Hillary? Well she was firt lady for 20 years before her first run for office.. She was so damn ambitious she played second fiddle to someone not necessarily her better for over 20 years. Few sane people would call that ambition. But hey, snortin' KoolAid does crazy things.
Book plot
From tartu's second link above:
"People love money," Daley said Tuesday. "Some love sex. Some love drugs. Some love power. It's human frailties. You don't have to bring individuals down when you're running for the highest office in the United States."
So now state politicians don't count as career politicians? Wow. Why do some states have term limits then?
It's a medical problem, don't you see?
Drug addiction, sex addiction, power addiction. It should be handled with care and understanding.
Lamber, are you banned yet?
You questioned the OFB
talking point.
That's really not how it works
And my comment on this over at TL was a far more measured "We'll have to agree to disagree."
Though I do agree this post could be said to test the boundaries. But honestly! As somebody once said: "Enough!"
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
The talking points
about Obama are't gettng any better, more convincing, or bear much resemblance to reality.
But, boy, that's some yummy kool-aid.
they're trying to reassure themselves still--
all of these statements that are blatantly lies are telling of their insecurity and personal need to prop up of a weak candidate that they know is weak, but can't abandon bec they see no alternative, or they hope for something in him he's never shown and never will.
Will the koolaid carry over to an Obama presidency?
If we* are justifying poor decisions by Obama/DNC, should he assume the presidency, we could trash the Dem brand the same way the GOP did. Going from one loser to another isn't very appealing to me. Sigh.
* by we I mean Dems and the center/left generally
he won't be able to do anything, given the budget--
nor has he shown he has anything he'd fight to do to begin with, and we're never allowed to deficit spend the way the GOP always is too.
so--i don't think there would be decisions made at all--just caretaking and budget and program cutting and more nibbling on the edges of issues instead of tackling them.
Yes--the Kool-Aid will carry over, esp'ly the powder form.
Breaking the powder habit is extremely difficult.
There will be few if any Congressional checks and balances allowed.
We must do all we can to instill some sense of strength in the progressives in Congress. Perhaps send coupons for calcium tablets?
This has been a wordy answer to a simple question.