Because the unity pony’s poop don’t stink!

is all Obama’s guilty of here. I’d spend more time and energy defending him on this if I weren’t already exhausted from defending Geraldine Ferraro for the exact same crime.

And if Obama hadn’t nailed the door shut on reconciliation by using Ferraro in The Greatest Speech Ever, that would have been nice. Oh well. So much for “not this time.”

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Pick out the racist comment. You can play along here. For the record, I agree with eriposte that none of the speakers are racists, at least based on these comments alone (I don’t know what’s in their hearts, who can).

A post by Riverdaughter that discusses the damage in very personal terms - http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/…

And I just realized that if it hadn’t been for this primary and its “divisiveness”, I wouldn’t be reading Riverdaughter or Anglachel (whose post I just linked to in another blog). So the “divisiveness” has served me, personally, very well by introducing me to writers I would otherwise never have found.

Great to see the Fox-and-friends points posted here.
Even Chris Wallace couldn’t get with the “typical white person” program, so it’s good that you staunch progressives are holding up the flag.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Oh yes, because any disrespect for Archie Bunker’s congressperson is race war. The man is so damn uppity.

An Obama supporter just responded to an Obama criticism - that Obama doesn’t live up to the standards he holds others to - by smearing the criticizer as racist…how novel, how uplifting, how uniting.

And he managed to do it by smearing Ferraro with a guilt-by-association reference to a fictional character! Stay classy.

wtf?

new
Submitted by BDBlue on Fri, 2008-03-21 15:34.

And he managed to do it by smearing Ferraro with a guilt-by-association reference to a fictional character! Stay classy.

Fox-and-friends has been 24/7 with this “typical white person” slur. When anyone with a brain and any honesty knows that Obama was saying something absolutely true - a smear only in the eyes of the “i’m color blind” set. And Ferraro was known widely as “archie bunker’s congressman” for many years - and has the race record to prove it.

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

It makes sense that Democrats/progressives would prefer one of Clinton vs. Obama.

It makes sense that wingers would engage in wild non-stop sluring of both.

What I don’t understand is your motivation for essentially replicating Fox news slurs on Obama 24/7. I mean, it’s one thing to prefer one moderate establishment democrat over another. But what I see here is a level of bitterness and contempt that is frankly baffling.

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your concerns are very important to us. Please do not hesitate to share them again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

—that’s it.

I see that too, and any contempt and bitterness is because one of them presents himself as something entirely other than that.
The media helps sells it for him and outrageously trashes the other, and lets one get away with stuff the other gets vilified for, even when both campaigns are acting the same way.

If we don’t give a pass to the hypocrisy and misrepresentation of one, we get insulted and pegged as bitter—but i believe everyone here will vote Dem in Nov no matter who it is. Many here just want the one that’s not selling himself as something he’s not.

If we don’t give a pass to the hypocrisy and misrepresentation of one, we get insulted and pegged as bitter—but i believe everyone here will vote Dem in Nov no matter who it is. Many here just want the one that’s not selling himself as something he’s not.

Oh come on. Surely you don’t believe that Senator Clinton always secretly opposed NAFTA or that her doubts about the war are based on deeply held moral principles about killing 100,000 people for nothing? They are both politicians who try to present themselves more positively than facts support.

Obama got a relatively free ride from the media for two reasons. One, they thought Hillary was a shoe-in and wanted to damage the front runner, and two he has come up with a smart rhetoric for describing progressive points of view in a way the eludes 40 years of republican negative branding. As you’ve seen, once he became the front runner, his immunity vanished and he’s had to work harder.

But it appears to me that some of the bitterness is that Obama took Lakoff seriously and tried to express the majority sentiment which is decidedly more Democratic than Republican, in language that reached people not in the current Democratic coalition. You seem to be angry that his rhetorical tricks worked. That baffles me.

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your concerns are very important to us. Please do not hesitate to share them again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

“he has come up with a smart rhetoric for describing progressive points of view in a way the eludes 40 years of republican negative branding.”

Except he hasn’t described or proposed progressive points of view—esp on domestic stuff—he’s to the right of Hillary on healthcare, and other vital stuff—and progressives don’t make “postpartisanship” and “unity” their big selling point, nor do they describe the fights for rights and for equality and opportunity as stuff we need to move past, etc.

Progressives know that we have to fight to get what we want, like FDR and LBJ. And progressives know that unity is impossible—helping people and solving our deep growing problems while reversing GOP wrongs and moving us all forward is what matters. They also know the GOP brags about denying child healthcare—there’s no coming together on the issues most important to Americans because one side won’t ever allow the government to be used to actually help ALL Americans—they simply don’t believe in it.

Except he hasn’t described or proposed progressive points of view—esp on domestic stuff—he’s to the right of Hillary on healthcare, and other vital stuff—and progressives don’t make “postpartisanship” and “unity” their big selling point, nor do they describe the fights for rights and for equality and opportunity as stuff we need to move past, etc.

The right of hillary is, at best, debatable. For example, Robert Kuttner who is WAY to the left of Krugman prefers Obamas health plan, although he correctly points out that both are far inferior to Kucinich’s proposal and pretty damn timid.

As for the rest - why not? Why do we have to make the argument on the terms the Republicans have set? Obama is essentially defining the Thug point of view as obsolete and in many ways he is right. The generations that bought into the southern strategy are no longer dominant and instead of arguing “no liberal does not mean traitorous big government etc etc”, Obama is saying “who cares about that crap, we need health care, social investment and an end to the war.” That is, he is trying to hop over the enemy positions.

Fine if you disagree, but that still does not justify the incessant bitter mockery here. We are talking about a smart guy who is endorsed by some of the most stalwart progressive figures in the nation. If you prefer Hillary, why do you have to express utter contempt for her opponent?

Je repete:

[I]f Hillary Clinton referred to a “typical black person,” would we ever hear the end of it?

Is there any other answer but “no”?

As for the rest of it, it’s straightforward reporting by WIP. Good for them.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Cornell West has endorsed a right wing candidate.

In the words of Senator Clinton, try a little reality check.

Obama is doing than this:

But it appears to me that some of the bitterness is that Obama took Lakoff seriously and tried to express the majority sentiment which is decidedly more Democratic than Republican, in language that reached people not in the current Democratic coalition.

Obama’s rhetoric from the odious ’The Audacity of Hope’ to ’The Greatest Speech Evah’ is little more than using ’conservative’ frames to describe historical events of which he apparently has no knowledge:

That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke to the failures of liberal government(never mind that republicans had been essentially running things since Nixon), during a perioud of economic stagnation(see Nixon’s extension of the Vietnam war for five inflationary years), to give middle class voters any sense that it was fighting for them(Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize Winner might disagree with that). For the government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money(the never ending song of the ’conservative’ Traditional Economists who gave you the Great Depression and who are ready now for Take II on that fun time).

Yep, I lived through all of that from 1965 on I can tell ya. Obama ain’t no Democrat. Historical revisionist of just ignorant? Who cares. As for being Mr. Unifier well from ’The Greatest Speech Evah!’:

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.(I struck a blow for them when I voted not to cap interest on credit cards at 30%) I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because(my backers desperately needed a candidate the corporatist press could use to ’disappear’ John Edwards) I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together(those of us who are rich that is or who have rich friends who got rich by delivering sub-standard housing….with my help….to the underclass. Who’d be rich if they could only be like me) – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes;(it’s imperative that the citizenry not realize that they will continue to suffer a declining standard of living as my uber-rich friends accumulate the vast majority of the wealth that we all create together. My talk of us all being on the same side is very useful in that regard.) that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren(of the very few who’ve financed and created my candidacy. Whatever I do, whatever I say I never discuss or even imply that the concept of class even exists. That the few with the help of many such as I are stealing from the many. Every day.).

George never said you couldn’t use framing to bamboozle folks. In fact, he got started researching the whole concept from studying the ReThuglican Reich.

Obama likes the Rethuglican perspective so damn much I say he can run on their ticket.

Oh…yeah, I reckon that would pose some problems for him. Like the vast majority of that party who’s leaders and methods he so admires being violent barking mad racists.

But then HIllary and Bill are racists too.

Man what a tough spot the O-man is in. And ya know what? I do not believe that a few choruses of Kumbaya are gonna save the day.

Oh well he can always go back to the Senate and hang with his mentor, The Last Honest Man.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

“Why do we have to make the argument on the terms the Republicans have set? Obama is essentially defining the Thug point of view as obsolete and in many ways he is right.”

Either Obama is full of shit, or when he says we will come together and have unity and not fight, the Republicans are the ones we’re stuck doing that with—that’s why. Them, and health insurance companies that only make money when they deny care, and other big powerful interests who don’t profit when all Americans get helped. That’s why. Congress is full of Republicans who obstruct everything good even now when they’re in the minority and that will only escalate when we take the WH back—that’s why.

There are no reasonable people to come together with, and the other party doesn’t want ANY of the things this country needs.

he’s actively harmed progressive causes and set them back—reviving Harry and Louise and fighting mandates for healthcare, sucking up to exgays and others to get religious right voters, insulting whole generations of older voters & repudiating every single fight that helped Americans, continually reassuring white voters he wasn’t like those other black candidates in the past which just reinforces their stereotypes, painting the only successful Dem in 40 years as racist, …

He’s set back the fight for universal healthcare, which a majority of Americans want, set back equal marriage and other rights for us gays, set back protecting Social Security, set back helping public schools, …

And we still don’t know who he is while we know this bad stuff already—how much more is there that’s gonna come out?

candidates and both have big problems—i want Edwards back, personally, but the media decided it’d be Good Barack vs. Bad Hillary way before a single vote was cast.

Either Obama is full of shit, or when he says we will come together and have unity and not fight, the Republicans are the ones we’re stuck doing that with—that’s why. Them, and health insurance companies that only make money when they deny care, and other big powerful interests who don’t profit when all Americans get helped. That’s why. Congress is full of Republicans who obstruct everything good even now when they’re in the minority and that will only escalate when we take the WH back—that’s why.

* reply

This is actually a question of fact, not opinion, and the facts are against you. Polls show a substantial majority agreeing with Democratic positions but an even split in elections. 1/3 of women voting republican are pro-choice. And so on - this is all well documented. Obama’s pitch is to the voters, not to the Republican operatives in washington.

They get what they want, and the rest of us get more wars and more repression and fewer jobs and a looted economy and a corrupt, incompetent government.

This is what Grover Norquist meant when he said “Bipartisanship is date rape.”

I think we should take Mr. Norquist at his word, since the actions of the GOP have pretty much agreed with his words so far.

That’s why he’s good with putting them in his cabinet. That talking point is old, rootless. Try another.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.