Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit

vastleft's picture

Claire McCaskill on Obama:

“They say that he is arrogant. That he’s unpatriotic. Blah blah blah blah blah,” she said.

“I know this man. He is humble. He is devoutly Christian. He loves his family more than anything else in the world. He cares about family. He reveres our men and women and uniform. And he is as red white and blue as you can possibly get.”

“He will tell you that this election is not about him, and he means it,” said McCaskill. “He will tell you it is about you.”

PATRIOTISM "ISSUE" PROPHYLACTIC: The patriotism ding on Obama is a bunch of crap. He's as patriotic as any other candidate (or any other leader of a narcissistic "movement").

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

Otherwise, why?

[ ] 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

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

Yeah, why should we the voters be able to even discuss whether arrogance (=elitist, uncaring about others, overreaching the executive authority of the president) or patriotism is important in a presidential not-yet-nominee?

Pat J's picture
Submitted by Pat J on

In order to become a qualified VP contender, all candidates must submit in writing an essay regarding Obama. They will be judged on grammar and who can kiss ass the best!

In Claire's case, hers was written by her 18 year old daughter who convinced her mother to abandon the Clinton's after they helped finance and supported her during her run for the Senate, in favor of Obama.

The inside of my mouth no longer holds my bile. I keep my vomit bucket with me at all times.

Pat J

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Alternatively, since it's all about me, can I expect my name to be read into nomination in Denver?

Submitted by lambert on

... I don't think the answer to that question is "Yes." You can't have Hillary back; it's gone too far (modulo the classic scenario of "in bed with a dead woman or a live boy").

Nobody would be happier than to see something positive -- the [ ] ????? of my sig -- emerge from PUMA. So far as I can tell, it hasn't -- unless, exactly like the invisible women of the primaries, something under the radar is going on, which could well be, since our press is so broken. What I am seeing is ideas like raising money for down-ticket Republicans -- farewell, credibility of critique of TX caucuses! That's discouraging. Nothing personal here, but....

[ ] 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

Submitted by lambert on

prayer
Ick:

From 6/1-9/1 Watching the spectical [sic] on Sat. at the rules meeting breaks my heart. We can't wait for HRC to see the light on her own, we need to begin praying for her and her supporters now. Please commit to praying for them daily to 1) stop trying to hurt the Obama's and the Democratic party. 2) Pray God will speak to them all and change their hearts so their only pursuit will be party unity and whole heartedly backing Sen. Obama.

The event is scheduled for Friday, August 29 at 12:00 PM (check the link).

[ ] 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

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Sorry to see that Sally Quinn's prayers in this regard weren't answered.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

My daughter's Birthday, nice.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Submitted by lambert on

I'd be there in a heartbeat.

[ ] 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

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

There, I feel better now that I've fixed the creepy Christian's bad grammar.

This reminds me that I realized something yesterday. Well, not so much realized as have it become clear in a way it wasn't before. Even though I should be excited as hell about this election, about the end of the worst Administration in U.S. history, I'm not. The reason I'm not is that both of my choices embody an aspect of George W. Bush - McCain in terms of his policies, Obama in terms of his cult of personality.

What has made W such a spectacularly bad president, IMO, is the combination of these two things. He's managed to combine all the immorality and policy horrors of the modern GOP with a cult of personality that leads people not to question him.

Anyway, I realize that no matter what happens this fall, I'm getting one of the things that's made Bush so awful. Kind of lessens the enthusiasm.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

horseloverfat's picture
Submitted by horseloverfat on

that is the last time I follow a link to Sally Quinn.
Eckkk!!!

"A lie, repeated frequently, becomes reality"

- V. I. Lenin, Josef Goebbels, et al

H F

"A lie told often enough becomes truth."

- V. I. Lenin

H F

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Projectile vomited, burped, farted and crapped myself at the same time after reading what Lambert posted from Obama's website.
Unfreakingbelievable!

OxyCon

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

I have seen such a proposal floated but no one I know has any plans to actually do it. We're Democrats. That doesn't mean there won't be some seriously pissed off Democrats if Hillary doesn't get some kind of recognition. But AFAIK, there are no plans to do that.
And yes, there is a whole invisible demographic out there. Not all of us are women. But we ARE having an impact on recent poll numbers and the drop in the number of Democrats reported in July. People see through the news these days and they are a lot more skeptical.
It's not over until it's over. Right now, we see the Obama camp ramping up to try to subdue us this week. But it's not going to work. They've already done everything there is to do and we're still not converting. Now, they can go ahead with their plans to crown Obama in Denver and take a chance that they'll get some of us to give up. But if I am reading the mood of the holdouts corectly, and I've been pretty right so far, anything less than an open, transparent and fair convention is going to be met with a tremndous backlash. Do they really want to risk that? Why not just open up the convention, honor her delegates, let her be nominated and win our support? If he's really the people's choice, this should be a piece of cake. Right?

Come together at The Confluence

Come together at The Confluence

Submitted by lambert on

All I'm saying is that I haven't seen this yet, though I can believe it exists. And the problem with even "floating" such a proposal is that it plays right into the "it's Republican provacateurs" meme. Now, I don't believe that. But there's no reason to hand that ammo out.** I don't mean to lecture, but I am saying what I have heard others say (verbally, in person) also. And stuff like that LJ video on Michelle really worried me. It's real, real easy for the abused -- and Hillary supporters were and are abused -- to pass abuse along. Again, not personal. It's very, very human to become like those who abused us, and pass along the pain to another generation. Just saying.

** Again, the TX caucus stuff is gold. Pure gold, straight up. Just frame it as a justice issue, pure and simple. No reason to get into the horserace stuff at all, mocking or otherwise. People are sick of it. Just gimme the truth!

[ ] 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

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

It's not like GOP-types infiltrate liberal leaning groups. We can't start pulling an O'Reilley or Hannity and take everything in the blogosphere at face value. Some are liberal wingnuts, some are right-wingnuts. It's hard to tell with the anonymity.

That aside, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the only way to get a progressive agenda is to recruit liberal/moderate Republicans. I'd take a Lincoln Chafee over a Ben Nelson any day--if its 50-49, we'll get it with Chafee, but not with Nelson. Try as we may to turn the Dems into what we want them to be, it won't happen if they are our only option. Look at the near daily cheek scratch Obama gives to progressives.

Don't get me wrong, as an "Old Europe" Dem I'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming to become a GOPer, but that doesn't mean a 21st Century [movement] Liberal shouldn't see the benefit of having more liberal/moderate GOPers as office holders and candidates.

The problem with PB1.0 and liberals of the last decade is that they are living in a binary political world when it is higher order. We're playing by the current limited rules rather than trying to change them.

Only tyrants rig elections.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Other than Chafee, the GOP votes in near-perfect lockstep, and very very badly.

We need more and better Democrats or viable progressive third-party candidates.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Only having one GOP "ally" (in practical terms, vote) doesn't help us. This is not an advocacy for Obama's version of "bipartisanship" either. It's about shifting the entire political discussion to our side. It's much more radical than the old PB1.0 strategy. But if you want to continue using a strategy that has failed, be my guest. But, as I mentioned previously, the conservative movement wasn't entirely GOP-based to begin with and that's what made them so successful. It's my view that the conservative movement began faltering precisely when they started hitching their wagon solely to the GOP.

Also, I seem to recall that Democrats used to be a pretty nasty political party that ended up adopting much of the early GOP platform. What happened? Why? Worth discussing more. And how did the GOP get so far Off Center? Another good discussion. It seems to me that too many of us are stuck in the mindset of the last decade, rather than looking at other historical precedents. For example, look at the civil rights act. That's what Party Invariance looks like. We won't get there with our current strategy.

Only tyrants rig elections.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

That's kinda what we've been complaining about, right? How did that happen? Why is it getting worse? Because we've defined DemocraticParty=progressivism, where the Dems have winning elections as their top priority.

I'm not advocating for an abandonment of the Dem party, only an expansion of the movement beyond partisan boundaries. And, historically speaking, the Parties have changed significantly over the years. The early GOP was much more progressive than the Dems (I'm a Seward Republican, baby!).

Political Parties should be thought of as tools, IMO. Why use only one tool, when you can use two? I think the one thing that is sure to get PB2.0 into the crapper like PB1.0 is an equating of Democratic Party with liberalism (I like to call it the 21st Century Liberalism).

Only tyrants rig elections.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... we're going to get more mileage from leaning on today's Repubs to be progressives than leaning on today's Dems for same, and the suggestion that not looking to Repubs for progressivism is the source of our "failure."

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

Another volunteer opportunity? Nothing like mixing church and state already...

(snark on fake compassionate progressives here, not people who really pray.)

Submitted by lambert on

... saying "whitey" that Larry Johnson kept teasing, but never delivered on. Several people, including Anglachel and this blog expressed caution on this one, and IIRC -- heck, prove me wrong -- we were vindicated.

[ ] 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

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

So, what kind of black magic do you guys want to set up for August 29? Damn! I just said "black" magic. I'm a hell-bound racist fiend. I call upon the ass-kiss angel to lead me to the Redeemer Obama for forgiveness.

The OFB just can't help themselves, can they? Bless their hearts. My question is, will they be praying to God-Formerly-Known-as-God, or the Usurper God Obama?

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

What was that post in response to, Lambert? But, while we're on it, can you be vindicated on this? Don't you essentially have to prove a negative (i.e. that it doesn't exist) to be vindicated?

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...