Friday, May 02, 2008

Bullies and Pulpits


I'll make this quick and to the point.

If the American voters really are willing to take into consideration, even for a moment, Barack Obama's association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright when deciding whether or not to vote for him, then we get what we deserve in November.

The conflict-addicted mass media has been going ape-shit over the past several weeks, robotically parroting Hillary Clinton's talking points and keeping on life support a non-issue that's always been the kind of thing only the most simple-minded and sheltered among us would concern him or herself with. Now, in a ballsy tip of the hat to their own fuck-you-all might, TV and print news organizations are touting the Wright "scandal" as reason for Camp Clinton's recent bump in the polls. The whole ridiculous mess has forced Obama -- who had been taking the highest of roads by not throwing Wright under the bus -- to play by the asinine game that so many voters purport to loathe and actually address this nonsense. This of course adds yet another surreal layer to the story, by allowing the media vultures to breathlessly claim that the "normally cool Obama is on the defensive" against a tempest that they themselves created.

The Jeremiah Wright "issue" isn't one. In the famous words of Gertrude Stein -- there's no there there. Yet I don't doubt that there are quite a few voters across this land of ours who aren't convinced -- who find themselves scratching their heads and saying musically and suspiciously, "Well, I don't knooow."

And it's exactly this kind of thinking that gave us eight years of George Bush.

If you're really stupid enough to worry about bullshit this inconsequential, particularly with everything else that's going on in the world right now -- with all that's at stake -- please do this country a favor and stay the hell home on election day. You shouldn't be entrusted with the power of a vote.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amen.

Ditto for the arguments surrounding his refusal to wear the American flag pin.

Darkshrike said...

Amen!

Nancy said...

Preach it, brother! PREACH it!

n, np

tony said...

So say we all.

Which is quite ironic for me to say since I gave one of my kids a rash of shit this morning for giving me the excuse that "because everyone else was doing it".

Joshua said...

Well, I'm not sure I agree. Reverend Wright feels, for reasons known only to Scary Negroes, some sort of... anger, I guess you'd call it, at the history of racial injustice or whatever in this country. I mean, seriously - STILL with that stuff, Reverend Wright? I think it's time to move on, accept the fact that God loves America, and ONLY America, and speaking of America, let's talk about American Idol.

Cindy said...

And this is coming from a black girl....I think Rev Wright is a kook....and I think we are all kookier for giving him the attention that he is so obviously craving......


You are so right Chez, and what scares me is that at the rate we are going we will be calling a Pres. McCain in November...ugh!!

Do we never learn?

VOTAR said...

Yeah but who saw the two crazy old angry grandmothers they had on CNN's American Morning show today screeching at each other over Clinton v. Obama?

That shit was comedy gold.

And the banner under them at the bottom of the screen: "Off Their Rockers"


Touche', CNN, touche'.

Deacon Blue said...

But wait, isn't Obama a Muslim?

(just kidding...)

Thomas said...

Well, keep fighting the good fight about Wright, Chez.

I'm still dealing with the kind of fuckwits that insist they'll "ne'er vote fer summuns whoose nayme rhymes wit' Osama". Really.

So for all of us stuck out in the godforsaken cow pastures with these tards, this whole preacher thing won't be an issue for, like, a whole 'nother three months. Can't wait.

Stephen said...

I don't know about this one. Personally, I agree with you. But for argument's sake, let's look at the Taibbi article you linked earlier in the week. That was brilliant and although he poked fun, he did reveal the crazy nature and truth "when the cameras aren't rolling." Now I'm going to SERIOUSLY consider not voting for someone who says they're born again or in anyway affiliated with such a church.
If that's the kind of venom that Wright has been spewing his entire career, then undoubtedly Obama was exposed to some form of it in the many years he attended the church.

I will resign as devil's advocate if it comes out that Obama told the story about how his dad beat him with his oversized clown shoes during a Wright retreat.

Anonymous said...

Coming from one woman in Indiana, I can tell you I am walking house to house on Saturday and Sunday, and there is a bunch of support and votes for Obama here. Both of my sons (19 and 23) are voting for Barack..

Web Dunce said...

If all this bullshit about Rev. Wright actually costs Obama the nomination then any shred of optimism I may have had about the political process and the role "the American people" play in it will be head-butted, kicked and spat on in its final back alley mugging. And for all the rabid political pundits who won't let the "issue" rest I offer this analogy. What if you belonged to the same Catholic church your whole life. Your priest not only performed your wedding ceremony and baptized your children, he also served as your confessor. Low and behold, he's accused of molestation (or even a lesser charge of embezzlement) and there's enough evidence that he is sent away. Does he inform your values and world view as a person? What if he was also a former military man? Is he more of a patriot than you?

Dianne said...

AMEN

Paul said...

Meh. I'm tired of America getting what it deserves. Can't we just rig the election?

b80vin said...

Well Stephen, you certainly did a good job of playing devil's advocate- that is exactly the argument being made about Wright and Obama. Allow me to take it further along the road:

Obama, like all poor ignorant black men, is a sponge. He is part Muslim because, well, his dad, who died when he was 8 or 9, was Muslim. It's in the black person's genes, you know, like stealing. He is also part 60's radical, because he was once friends with someone who was a 60's radical, and it's all about the peer pressure with THOSE people. Now to the point, he attends Wright's church and hears Wright say some outlandish things about America and just can't help it, his poor ignorant black brain accepts them all. So yeah, he probably did hear Wright say some stupid shit over time.

I guess it would be disingenuous of me to say I support Obama specifically because he had shown in his speeches and writings that he is not easily swayed by talking points and illogical arguments.

Personally, I find it hilarious that people are upset that Obama may have heard some angry anti-American talk, with a kernel of truth, but accept, no, INSIST that other candidates (including Obama) believe in talking snakes, the sun changing directions in the sky, and a man changing water into wine.

Stephen said...

b80vin- much better stated. It's the same people who are crying foul that put W. in the white house. The same people who spewed forth demons into paper bags.

For the record, I've said worse things about America than Rev. Wright...fortunately my audience says, "are you done? can you take out the trash now?" and lets it go.

Joyce said...

Chez, I enjoy reading your blog on a daily basis. Your insight, while I sometimes I disagree, is usually spot on. The problem we have right now is that even half way decent journalists are falling prey to reporting this crap (Olbermann for example). It's time the media focused on our horrible economy and the war in Iraq. But until then, it's up to the blogging world to comment on the MSM's stupidity.

Keep up the good fight Chez! We need more journalists like you!

Anonymous said...

why wright is a relevant issue:

listen to the man speak, listen to his obsene, vulgar, and downright loony proclamations, take into consideration the format in which he is packaging his ideas

everything wright says is designed to be powerful, stirring, he reaches as far as he can to make himself significant--wether or not he himself beleivs his own words--the man is clearly skilled in the art of preaching, and often the artfulness of preaching is not the product itself but the packaging which delivers it

now consider obama--where did this young man develop his oratorical might; when listening to him speak, does he not remind you exactly of a preacher? obama sat in wrights church for twenty years, wether or not he is accepting towards wrights ideas, or eve agrees with them, is an open question--but the obvius truth is that, aprt from ideas, wright and obama have something in common, they are both flash and awe, entertaining, and perhaps even: con men; they both derrive strenght from the packaging of their product, and not the actual thing, substance, itself

and he keeps referrencing 'washington tricks' and political tomfoolery? this is a canididate with no practical experience even approaching an acceptable level to justify him holding such a high position, the highest position, in office--who, has managed to make the american people dreamy with a blind admiration and cleverly worked himself in with the 'cool kids' ; and thus, americas next potential president is litte more than an ebarrassing fashion statement. After the camera flashes and thundering applause dies down, will america be happy with their choice, to traipse about this gaudy dress, across the international ball room floor?

Riles said...

Fuckin' A Right, Chez. For lack of time, if you'll indulge me, here's a comment I posted on ASWOBA. It's even more on topic to your post than John's.

"...After Bush never renounced the crazy teachings of Falwell or Dobson and let the religious right steer the decisions his admin made, for Obama to speak up and renounce Wright, I think, is [in politics] incredible. The current admin would tell us the opposite of what was true, and the public would buy it. Obama is honest (granted, as much as a politician can) and doesn't get nearly as much credit for it as he deserves.

Also, do people really think that a person's preacher represents that person's views? It's insane to think so. If it were true, and my priests/pastors represented my personal beliefs, I would be against abortion & birth control, and for pedophilia. Obviously the opposite is true."

I should note that I was raised Catholic, where you don't go to a church for the priest, but rather for the ritual. We had different priests weekly, and I disagreed with about 70% of them. But, in my family, as well as many other Catholic families, you don't change your church for that (at least, not until you're older). You continue to go, and pray, and listen to the readings. Obama isn't Catholic, but who am I (or the public), to say that he didn't change churches for that same reason?

Melissa B. said...

The BS you speak about is exactly the reason we've had such "stellar" presidents: Reagan (didn't know his Como Se Llama from a hole in the ground), Bush I (toady), Bush II (what planet am I on?). The BS starts in motion the vicious cycle: Media Magnifies Candidate Controversy, Joe Lunchbucket watches said controversy on cable over and over and over again, cable magnifies story, etc.

As the often (unfairly) lambasted Connie Chung once said, "Just about any story we think about doing, whether we've read it in a newspaper, heard it on the radio or come upon it through word of mouth - by the time you get there, every other network, cable station and talk show is already racing to the scene." The Millenium Media as Ambulance Chasers. Go figure.

Girl With Curious Hair said...

Chez, you're giving people too much credit. Apparently, Obama's problem isn't his pastor--it's his choice of morning beverage:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/4262

And Anonymous, I'm sorry to address you on someone else's blog--but I don't think we'll ever get anyone as mentally incompetent, lacking in substance or inexperienced in absolutely everything than the person in charge right now. At least Obama can charm people with his speeches. I like that in a president.

Riles said...

G.W.Curious Hair...

wow, what an asinine article. We're down to judging candidates based on OJ vs. coffee? It's childish to choose OJ?? If we're really examining it, how about it's just fucking healthier than coffee. Obama is certainly in better shape than the other 2.

Ugh.

...but I don't think we'll ever get anyone as mentally incompetent, lacking in substance or inexperienced in absolutely everything than the person in charge right now. At least Obama can charm people with his speeches....

Right. And, maybe charm other world leaders so we can be at peace with them again? That would be nice. Apart from everything else, I get the feeling that Obama would really try to work things out with a country we have conflicts with, rather than badger them into a war, or a boycott, etc.

Master Mahan said...

I'd say this is a very important issue. After all, I mindlessly obey everything my preacher tells me, so surely everyone else does too. Reverend Wright has no reason to be angry, because black people haven't been discriminated against in years.

Alex said...

You might enjoy this, Chez:
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=167429

Master Mahan said...

There's also the issue of Obama not wearing an American flag pin. On the surface, this seems like a non-issue, as none of the three major candidates wear a flag pin. It's sort of like drinking Pepsi instead of Coke because Coke is brown.

However, this assessment overlooks one very important fact: much like vampires and the crucifix, Muslims cannot stand the touch of an American flag. All that stock footage of Middle Easterners burning American flags the 24-hour news networks show hourly is an example of this. The Muslims in those videos didn't need matches to ignite the flags - that's what happens upon a flag's contact with a Muslim's brown skin. Were Obama to don a flag pin, his true nature would be instantly revealed by the smell of burning flesh.

John Foley said...

Dear Deus-
I must call BS on this. Obama supporters love to talk about how "none of this matters", but you know damn well that if this kind of thing came out about Clinton or McCain the Obama supporters would run it up the flagpole 8 ways 'til Sunday. It never matters when it's about your guy. But when it happens to the other guy? Oh boy, then it really matters a whole lot.

Anonymous said...

I've been reading your blog since you got sacked.

You just earned your weight in gold here, man.

Thanks for the eloquent "requiem" for this non-issue.

Deacon Blue said...

Uh, John...this stuff HAS come up with McCain and Clinton...and the media has virtually ignored it. Hagee alone is reason enough to cry "double standard" and there was talk of Clinton's connection to some conservative religious group up on the Hill.

Plus, no one blinked about Clinton balking on the tax returns for so long, etc. etc. etc.

The media has played up Wright and played down any other whispers of naughtiness about the other two candidates.

Chez said...

John --

First of all, it's Chez -- not Deus. Check the profile please.

Secondly, call BS all you'd like -- you're wrong. As far as I'm concerned, if I were going to dislike a candidate -- any candidate -- there are typically a hundred other issues I could note rather than his or her tenuous association with a preacher, or his or her reluctance to wear a flag pin, or any other of the nonsense "controversies" that have been manufactured so far this election season. Need an example? Of all the things I dislike John McCain for, his friendship with nutjob reverend John Hagee -- a guy who believes that we need to buddy up to Israel to hasten the second coming of Jesus -- is the ABSOLUTE LEAST of my worries. It's wholly concocted media-driven crap -- although it's worth noting that the Hagee garbage didn't have half the news legs that Wright does.

Do yourself a favor and ask why that is.

b80vin said...

Wow, John got two responses but Anon got none? May I, Chez? It's your blog afterall.

Anon, bullet points style

1)"listen to his (Wright's) obsene, vulgar, and downright loony proclamations," What is vulgar or obscene about them? They are little more than fringe opinions. As for venue, he's said them in different places.

2)"everything wright says is designed to be powerful, stirring, he reaches as far as he can to make himself significant" Yes, a preacher being stirring and powerful is quite odd. Now, considering the has been preaching for a looong time and you just heard of him, ask yourself: is it his designed "reaching" or the media's over-saturating this story and turning him into a celebrity?

3)"now consider obama--where did this young man develop his oratorical might; when listening to him speak, does he not remind you exactly of a preacher?" Remind me of a preacher how? Cadence? Volume? Inspiration? And what preacher? Do all preacher's orate the same? Could it be that ALL public speakers tend to sound alike because there are rules to effective public communication? Would you rather Obama be Ben Stein, without a hint of emotion (or intelligence) in his voice?

4)"they are both flash and awe, entertaining, and perhaps even: con men" Really? So all entertaining flashy and awe inspiring public speakers fall under the possible "con men" rubric? Or is it the other way around?

5)EVERYTHING in your last paragraph deserves a response, but I'll sum it up: Experience? Like Lincoln's? Like Grant's? The Shrub had experience in many fields, some of them political, and look what a hash he's made of the whole "highest position in office". And speaking for one who supports Obama, I resent your insinuation that I am unable to glean substance from what he says, from his books, and from reading his policy statements. If you think for one moment that those who support Obama believe they are voting for the king of the Senior Prom you're delusional. But I don't think you believe that. I think you're generalizing what you think the poor unthinking, irrational and "flash" fascinated negroes are thinking. As such I dismiss you as a racist.

See? See how unfair it is to be disqualified based only on a substance free intuition?

Deacon Blue said...

@ b80vin:

Didn't have enough sleep the night before. It was easier to call out John Foley and too hard to dissect what Anonymous was saying. But thanks for throwing yourself on that grenade.
;-)

the doctor said...

I disagree. This person that Mr. Obama now has disavowed himself from was his trusted advisor and mentor. he was in his campaign group and Mr. Obama said early in this that he did attend his church.

Hypothetically, what if this candidate or another attend a radical islam type church. Would that not figure into your decision? Each voter has the right to decide who to vote for and why they vote for them. Sorry Chez, but that is America.

Let's say Cheney was running for President - you wouldn't vote for him because he is merely an extension of Bush in your view. However, perhaps he has novel ideas to solve problems or ways of addressing things. So, if you wouldn't vote for Cheney or Karl Rove likely because they are from the same ideaology as Bush. I won't vote for Obama because he shares the same idealogy as Wright. If he didn't then he would have sought out another church or at least not allowed Wright to be a part of his campaign or inner circle.

Master Mahan said...

Doc: I hate to break it to you, but people don't always follow all of their church's teachings to the very letter. If someone left their congregation every time they had a disagreement, the Catholic Church in this country would shrivel to a third its current size.

And yes, voters have the right to vote against someone based on the stupidest of reasons. That doesn't make it any less stupid, or more newsworthy.

John Foley said...

Chez-
I just felt weird calling you by your first name is all. But since you insist, I will from now on.
As for double standards, well, no one hates them more than I do. I believe that every candidate should be vetted equally. No, that is not happening now, and I think that is a shame. That doesn't change the fact that for me, the questions that have been raised about Senator Obama are legitimate. He is much more of a cipher in the eyes of the American electorate. Even the most politically astute among us was probably not familiar with Obama up until maybe 3 years ago. I believe that every candidate needs to be grilled, not just Sen. Obama. Some questions are stupid and pointless, e.g. flag lapel pins, and who loves America the most. Those issues can be summarily dismissed with a few sentences, one would hope. Other questions are not as slight.
See, I have noticed a pattern that has developed every time one of these stories comes out. Every time an associate of Obama is brought up, the supporters go "it doesn't matter, none of this matters, let's talk about real issues!" This would be fine with me if they felt that way, except that they invariably follow it up with "and SAY what about all those creepy religious types that McCain hangs out with, what about them huh?" They just said that none of this matters, right? I think what many of them really mean is "it doesn't matter if it happens to my guy, but if it happens to the opposition then it can be used as ammunition."
Now, you say that this type of stuff doesn't bother you, and I must take you at your word. I think you are fairly unique in this mindset, however. This is politics, and if this kind of stuff comes out about the "other guy", everyone gets a hell of a lot more worked up over it.
Personally, I believe that these kinds of issues/associates/closet skeletons are ALL fair game. That the media is focusing more on Obama right now can't be denied, but that doesn't mean that the questions themselves are irrelevant. I just think that McCain and Clinton also have a lot to answer for. These are concrete things. There is only so much policy discussion you can really get into before it all starts to turn into white noise, particularly when you take the nature of elections into account. All politicians say whatever they need to get elected. They are talking about a blue sky future, and we never hold them to it.
The past, on the other hand, is already written.

Have a good night.

JF

b80vin said...

John you see the forest, but not the trees. The question isn't why aren't McCain's and Clinton's odd hangers on being scrutinized by the media that obsesses about Obama. We know this is non-news. The question is why if the media is pretending this is important is it only making it important when it concerns Obama? Or, why Wright and not Hagee? Why Wright's views and not Hagee's views? Is it political? Is it racial?

There is nothing in Obama's speeches, books, or policies that indicate he shares Wright's most radical views. It's that simple, John. It's an issue if he parrots Wright. But he's not. It's called a substantive argument. If you have one that shows Obama shares Wright's wackier beliefs present it, because that would be news.

So, John, did you see how the Pentagon provided pundits to the major news networks to push the war, and how none of the news networks disclosed these pundits ties? Not on the major news networks. But you heard about Wright. This is Chez's point, and most of the other people who find this story a source of ennui.

John Foley said...

b80vin-
I'm sorry that you think I see only the forest and not the trees. I assure you, I am completely focused on all of the details as well as the bigger picture. You don't know how I feel about this entire issue, you only know what I've responded to here.
As I said, I think that many of these questions are legitimate. I also believe that Senator Obama's answers to these issues have been sufficient. You didn't know that part, because you'd already filled in the rest without asking.
Do you honestly believe that the questions about William Ayers shouldn't even be asked? Do you think that a man running for President shouldn't even be asked about his association with a convicted domestic terrorist? I certainly do believe that this question can and should be asked. AND I am satisfied with Obama's answers. It is possible to hold both beliefs, you know. I'm being eminently fair and objective here.
It is a little irritating to see yourself being described as "simple-minded and sheltered" just because you have a different take on a political issue. I mean Jeez, it's not like I believe in Intelligent Design or something.

Anonymous said...

RE: b8ovin

1) I would say that a theory of the aids virus originatng from a government laboratory as a weapon designed to attak the ranks of black people holds a prominent position in the loony tunes category.

2) ...and no matter how out of context wrights clips might be shown, the phrase 'god damn america' wont be changed much no matter where you put it; theres only so much that the media can do, in ths case, a breif period of exposure to wrights patented school of outragious tomfoolery is enough to cause a rash, and im thankful for not being subjected to more than thirty seconds of this mans blatherings.

3) No, all public speakers do not sound alike. That is a ridiculous idea.

4) Wright is a con artist because its doubtful wether any man of such stature could own such a hilariously oxygen deprived mind, and so the bulk of his power comes from reaching beyond his own opinions and ideas to come back with something truly stirring--and he's a hypocrite because he rails against the established white community while making a fortune from his wacky pulpit, and that very same reverend wright is living amongst the affluent white community in his retirement.

Obama might be construed as a con artist for the same methods of representation of ideas which really are designed to go somewhere, rather than practicly exist within the true element of such ideas. Genreally i think that he represents himself as the right answer for america, that through these troubling times he cuts through the mist on his political stalion and champions a new era of american thinking--he suceeds through expedient of morality, providing that which george bush failed to provide, an agreeable representation of moral perspective, not so much that obama is a qualified and ready candidate for office: he is the right man because he is a good man, that is what his supporters believe.

But practicaly he is not the right man, hillary is the right 'man' because naturally she knows the washington machine from inside out, she can enable her parties policies to be acted upon trhough the political process, regardless of what sort of person she is, undeniably she is better qualified to work this job, and that is something which the american people fail to understand: politics and good government are questions of practicality.

Why is obama even running this campaign? Before it began many would assume that the clinton machine was entitled, had earned, and would receive the candidacy, why would obama charge head first into this titanic battle? --one which is threatening to rupture the democratic party--whereas instead he might have waited, and received his candidacy in a timely fashion, when perhaps he would be better prepared for presidancy. Because Obama is not interested in being the right answer for america, Hillary has always been the right answer, her policies and perspective are largely the same as obamas, the only seperation lies in personality, and speaking, and in experience and knowledge of government- --no, obama is interested only in succeeding, he thought to himself 'im going to get that senator' and charged after her with a lance.

Obamas message of hope has a melodious ring, looking at him you get the feeling that here is a man who gets things done--however these abstract ideas of success which cling to obama are completely impractical, no matter what his intentions are, what morrality he subscribes to, he is simply the wrong tool.

5) I've heard this argument before, and its pretty stupid: 'because people of great experience have proven to be wrong, or were not above error, then we must accept that all experience is useless.'

Reminds me of this idea: ' my sisters operation was a failure, apparently the doctor had made an unfortunate mistake; therefore i now deem all medical professionlas to be worthless, and the next time i experience heart problems i'll check in with my auto mechanic.

.....and yes, i do beleive that obama is essentially the queen of the prom, but the longer the national spotlight is fixated on his glittering crown, the more its mesmerizing luster will slowly fade awaw...

b80vin said...

John, I am responding only to what you write. I am incapable of knowing your thoughts further than what you expressed, and you posited that there is a hypocrisy in denouncing the importance of Wright while bringing Hagee and Pasley into the argument. By posing this I felt you were missing the point.

The attacks and questions aimed at Obama have been one sided. If you think that they are pertinent then you certainly think they are pertinent for the other parties. I do not. I am more interested in the substantive questions. That, I believe, was the point of Chez's original post.

I do not in any way diminish your right to consider these questions, if they are important to you. I simply deny the over dependency of the news media on these periphery issues as being functional to their mandate, particularly at the expense of all other issues.

b80vin said...

Anon, I don't want to resort to fisking here, but it is difficult to address all your varied logical breakdowns any other way.

Firstly, I never said Wright's comments weren't a bit on the loony conspiratorial side. I asked what is obscene or vulgar about them. You failed to give me an example. The phrase, "God damn America" was chosen as an ironic counter to the uber-patriotic "God bless America". I find it the least offensive of Wright's oratory crimes as it has an internal context directly with the fact that the speaker is black. It is not a plea to god so much as it is a response to a privileged majority that historically deprived the speaker's race equality. It may seem obscene to YOU, but only if you refuse to admit the speaker uses it as a devise.

You are right that speakers do not all sound alike. I worded it wrong. I meant to say that rhetorical styles are often used to effect by speakers and these styles have commonality. This is not ridiculous. Speech writers get paid a lot of money to utilize these styles.

Your opinions of Wright do not seem to me based on any reality other than your preferred interpretation. Allow me to ignore your convenient strawman. By your own definition if Wright believes what he states he is not a con man, but delusional. Nor does he rail against the "established white community", but against racism.

I've read your description of Obama's sins over and over and have no idea what you're saying. I like how you dismiss his believers with another strawman and a generalization that has no basis in reality outside your own mind. As an Obama supporter I don't think he is the right man because he is a good man, but because he is an intelligent man with ideas that I think are worthy, and because, to me anyway, he rises above all other candidates.

You also write, inexplicably, "hillary is the right 'man' because naturally she knows the washington machine". How do you mean "naturally"? And could you explain, please how this supposed knowledge is inherently a good or even necessary attribute? Could you also explain how Obama, having served in Congress, has no "natural" knowledge of Washington?

You seem to be able to ascertain that Obama's motives are purely spiteful. You do not, however, seem to be able to glean, from his words, that he his driven by a sense of duty and love for his country. That he seeks the presidency because he has a hope and vision of America that is better than Hillary's and McCain's.

You present my argument as: 'because people of great experience have proven to be wrong, or were not above error, then we must accept that all experience is useless.' Actually that is entirely wrong. My argument is that experience is not a de facto indicator of inherent merit. Nixon and George W. Bush both had experience in governing(Nixon may have had the most federal government experience of all presidents, while Bush had far less experience than Gore). Both proved to be abject failures. Lincoln, Grant, Eisenhower all had relatively no experience. While I do not discount experience, I do not elevate it to the status of mandate.

Finally, you write "and yes, i do beleive that obama is essentially the queen of the prom," from which I can only conclude that you think I am, as an Obama supporter, an idiot, and I can confidently conclude that you are an ass.

Aaron X said...

Much like the Kentucky Derby's late lamented Philly Eight Belles, Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to come up lame with two broken legs at the end of this race, and for humanitarian reasons, will have to be put down/euthanized right there on the convention floor in Denver. :-)

Barack Obama is the 44th president, so I suggest y'all get used to having a brotha' in the White House running our country. After his presidency and the restoration of the American people's sovereignty in this nation, every Caucasian running for president here after will be considered a longshot, because as everybody knows, once you go Black you never go back. :-)

Obama 08 can you say inevitable? I knew you could.

Anonymous said...

b8ovin

the AIDS thing. all right? obsene and vulgar; there is no alternative interpretation.

device...that he makes use of this device is the POINT, he does not actually think in his mind 'god damn america' yet he injects this obsene remark into his speech to puff the whole thing up

this does not solve racism in america--you understand that?--this is compromising the practical solutions of a situation in favour of righteousness--oh, what divine righteousness! Rev wright has acted as detriment towards any possible unfication of the races, for the sake of his own gratification, all for the applause--what do white people think when they see rev wright? how does the reverend fit into the social landscape? is he benefiting anything or anyone by his cartoon personality? --rev wright is nothing more than a sketch character from the mind david chapelle, and while hes good for a few laughs and giggles he is not to be confused with a legitimate social commentator.

wright (divisive cartoon idiot who preaches without purpouse) = obama

what do you think i mean? hillary has been in the whitehouse and has been dealing with political figures and taking part in the political process for years so NATURALLY she has attained an extensive knowledge of the correct means of implementing party policiy, of effecting a political action.

obama has not had the priviledge of this rather unique perspective, he has not seen as much, has understood as much, has met as many, or knows as many, people as hillary--you think washington is easy to run? ...complicated machinery which only experienced hands can competently work.

Now, Obama could and might learn to run this machinery, he could and might be a very competent president; but hillary IS that competent president--why gamble?

??

everyone, commentators and such, affirms that there exists no profound difference between the policies of these two candidates, therefore the question is not so much 'wich?' policy but 'how?' and which candidate is best to enact this policy.

-- hahaha! you dont think knowledge of the washington machine is neccessary, thats very funny, and somewhat frightening as well; did you know that this machine comes with nuclear weapons? --

if obama truly loved his country enough that this love would influence his decisions, and if he also beleivs the democratic party to represent that which best serves america, at this time, he surely would not be running for presidancy, for even if, as you claim, his microscopic differentiating quality, in regards to policy, actually does better serve america, in a proportionally microscopic degree, this will be promptly overuled by the catastrophic manner in which obamas running for presidancy has completely FUCKED EVERYTHING UP for the democratic party, and cleared the feild for the republican candidate, who now might very well win (whereas before no one was thinking this)

if this is accepted, than one comes to understand that, outside of policy, there is no legitimate grounds for accepting one candidate over the other apart from competency in office

if you say that experience is not reliable measurement of competence, what then, is this measurement comprised of? SMILES AND BANNERS and the words hope and change circulating an infernal loop of typical american propoganda sprinkled with stars stripes and speeches suffused in the most vulgar obscenities--for me, the obscenity lies not within the words being obscene, but the obsenity which is formed by he who speaks it 'hope' from the mouth of barack obama is a vulgar idea because it has no meaning and yet propells the wheels of his mighty glammor machine faster and faster.

i might be an ass but at least im right