For all those who say groping a cardboard cutout of the Secretary of State-designate is no big deal, consider this. Women have put up with so much shit this election cycle that we’re just sick of it. At least during the primaries and general election, a weak case could be made that what was at play was just warring camps using, and accusing each other of using, the dirty tricks of racism vs. sexism to some misguided idea of political advantage, but at this point in the game, there’s just no excuse. Favreau’s bad judgment, leading to his own bad luck, is that he got caught indulging in sexist behavior just for the fun of it. Well, enough is enough. This time, women should not “get over it.” And, nobody should ask us to.
Screw James Carville, and the “just havin’ a little fun wit’ cardboard” excuse. If the little word thief is so repentant and apologetic, why is the offensive photo still up on Favreau’s Facebook page?
Ya gotta love Rev. Jeremiah Wright, bless his heart. I’m not kidding, ya gotta love him ‘cuz he won’t go away and stay gone so you can forget him. Like the proverbial bad penny, he keeps popping up, as full of piss and vinegar as ever. The Good Reverend was back ridin’ dirty in the Trinity United pulpit, celebrating the church’s 47th anniversary this Sunday, full of forgiveness for his wayward child’s “bad decision” to distance himself from his Unca Jerry…
“The hatred of the media and the haters in politics may have caused him to distance himself from us, but the love of Christ will never allow me to distance myself from him,” Wright said of Obama. “I can no more disown him than I can disown any other child of mine who makes [a] bad decision. He made a bad decision, but he’s still my child.”
“Jesus said upon this rock I will build–listen to the promise–my church,” he said. “And the gates of Hell–listen to the promise–the gates of Hell–neither ABC nor CNN–the gates of Hell–neither Hannity nor O’Reilly–the gates of Hell–neither Time, Time magazine, Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune … the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Nothing will be impossible with God.”
But it was “dumb broad,” Elizabeth Hasselback’s ignorance of history that really got Wright ticked:
He implied that his previous use of derogatory language to describe Italians in a past sermon referred to the Roman oppression Luke condemned.
“Emperor Augustus in Rome–that’s in Italy, dizzy blond on the View,” Wright said, presumably referring to conservative television personality Elisabeth Hasselback, who has railed about Wright on the ABC daytime talk show.
Obviously, Hasselback could use a few pointers from “Jeremiah the Historian” who made a point to commemorate the Japanese civilians who died at the hands of America’s predatory military:
At the 11 a.m. service, Wright belittled “baby milk believers,” who, he said, suffer a delusion that politics don’t belong in the pulpit. He pointed out that “Luke the evangelist, not Wright the radical” lambasted the oppressive policies of the Roman government in the Gospel story that recounts Jesus’ life.
“Any preacher who dares to point out the simple ugly facts found in every field imaginable is demonized as volatile, controversial, incendiary, inflammatory, anti-American and radical,” Wright said, taking time out to note the thousands of Japanese civilians who died 67 years to the day when American warplane dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. (Actually, Dec. 7 marks the day when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.)
Say what you will, he’s always entertaining.
Btw, ABC News is reporting that John McCain quite possibly blew the election by adhering to some sort of “politics as gentlemanly debate” code of ethics, and refusing to even show an ad going after Wright during the campaign. While I’m not sure a concentrated effort to discredit Obama via Wright would have turned the tide, I’m still pissed about all the good Wright rants McCain deprived us of.
PUMA bloggers are having fun at the expense of the bewildered living another day in the life of the Barack Obama vs. his “base” non-drama drama. Why the peace, love and internet “progressive/liberal/left” is in a snit defies logic. Weren’t these guys listening during the primaries, caucuses and general election? Or was the din in their echo chamber too loud?
Like Bible thumpers cherry picking passages, you could probably find Obama quotes to back up any position you want to take, if you Google long enough. Far from being some crusading straight shooter, Obama has always been a clever double talker. That is, when he’s on script, or in other words, reading or submitting ghost-written speeches. Off script, his words are often laughable, yet, equally adaptable, just much harder to decipher. “Uh, ah, above my pay grade…” can mean anything you want it to.
However, when the cardboard titty groper is putting words in his mouth, Obama becomes a double talking linguistic maestro, using language to magically transport an easily transfixed listener/reader to the brink of logical thought, only to employ a deft “sleight of tongue/pen” that metaphorically yanks the rational rug deftly from beneath one’s feet. Thus, true believing KoolAid drunks are left dazed and dazzled, while the mentally sober, upon noting the reaction of the bamboozled, are generally moved to hurl, immediately after muttering, “‘the fuck did he just say?”
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” is just stupid. Where have “we” been while “we” were waiting? And, how come “we” didn’t see “us?” That’s just one example of the silly shit he spews regularly and gets a pass for. “Save or create at least two and a half million jobs” is another doozy. Pay no attention to the fact that he just said a couple million jobs were at risk, or that we’ve lost more jobs than that in the last year, just think about the good times. “Now” is always “the time.” That’s what makes it “now.”
The fact that Obama never says anything he can’t wiggle out of, usually in the same sentence, has been lost on his faithful since Day One. He’s “always said” he was against “dumb wars” in the same speeches he was promoting other, presumably “smart” ones. October, 2, 2002:
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
He has “always said” he would “end the war” in Iraq as much, and as soon, as he could, only to re-deploy troops to Afghanistan. Only a braindead, pie-in-the-sky optimist could have ever taken anything he said as being “anti-war.” And yet, though repeatedly warned, some people feel cheated. Well, boo-hoo.
Obama even spelled out the kind of shape-shifting “commitments” he was likely to make to the goodfellas on Kos in 2005. In a diary entry he submitted regarding his position on the John Roberts confirmation, Obama “wrote:”
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of “framing,” although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It’s a matter of actually having faith in the American people’s ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.
The “Obama is a liberal” noise came primarily from Republicans, not Obama. Anybody who heard/read anything different then, from what he’s doing/saying now, deserves whatever they get.
Can you say “Kennedy?” Talk about “entitled.” And, oh, Ted Kennedy’s fair haired boy did. Between “rising oceans” and “shining lights,” the “time had come” to “change” from the “old Washington” of the “Bush/Clinton dynasty.” Hell, “those Clintons” were so desperate to get back into the Oval Office they thought they rightfully owned, that poor Barack Obama didn’t know who he was running against sometimes. The mainstream media, bully blogger boyz and other Barack Obama minions, (think Father Pfleger) had a field day yelling about how Hillary Clinton wasn’t “entitled” just because she was a “Clinton.” In fact, Hillary wasn’t “entitled” at all, the only reason she even was in politics was because people just felt sorry for her. Hillary was forced to defend herself from those “Bush/Clinton dynasty” accusations throughout her presidential campaign, leveled mostly by teeny-bopper “change” enthusiasts bemoaning the fact that only two families had held the presidency “their whole lives.” No matter how thoroughly debunked; the “evil Clinton dynasty must die” theme lived on. The fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have about as much in common with George Bush I and II, as Oprah Winfrey has with Sarah Palin, was of no apparent consequence. Even Bill “Judas” Richardson chimed in with the Clinton “entitlement” happy crappy in an attempt to justify his betrayal:
James Carville told the New York Times that Richardson, a former member of Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, had committed “an act of betrayal,” adding that it “came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out [Jesus] for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”
“I’m not going to get in the gutter like that,” Richardson responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “And you know, that’s typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.”
But, say the magic woid, “Kennedy,” and, well, that’s a different a-okay story. Now, the idea of “Sweet Caroline” continuing the “family legacy” has the blessing of the world, her Uncle Ted and the press. CNN:
Caroline Kennedy, who spent most of her life looking to steer clear of the spotlight, is capping off a year of unusually public — and political — activity with interest in the Senate seat that would be vacated by Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton.
And her interest in that seat could mean the continuation of a Kennedy legacy in the Senate that began 56 years ago with the election of her father, John F. Kennedy, as the junior senator from Massachusetts.
But reached on Friday night, Eleanor Smeal, the president of Feminist Majority, said that if Ms. Kennedy decided to seek the job, she would have to go back to her board to discuss whom they would support going forward.
“I feel that her record is extremely strong. We know she gets things done,” Ms. Smeal said of Ms. Maloney. “But there’s no question we’ll go back to the board. You’re talking to someone who thinks Ted Kennedy is the most effective senator there.”
In other words, her name is Kennedy and Unca Ted wants it. The New York Post comes out and says it:
Powerful senator and family patriarch Ted Kennedy has been working back channels to promote niece Caroline as the replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Senate, family sources told The Post.
The elder Kennedy (D-Mass.), who’s battling brain cancer, has sent word to Gov. Paterson’s office that Caroline Kennedy, 51, has contacts and family connections that would mean legislation affecting New York would receive prompt attention, family sources said.
Caroline Kennedy has even less political experience than Barack Obama, and that’s saying something. Sure, she lived in the White House when she was about six years old, but, as we know, things that happened when you were a little kid don’t count. Despite the fact that when HRC decided she wanted to be president, she went out and earned a Senate seat then worked her ass off in it, I expect Team O to trot Richardson, the baby blogger bullies, and all the other Clinton detractors out in the next few days to mount a “rah-rah Caroline Kennedy entitled dynasty heiress good thing” campaign to give her an unearned Senate seat, a virtual lock on it in 2010, and a leg up on a future White House run. Not just because Caroline is a “Kennedy;” mainly because she’s not a “Clinton. Gotta keep that torch passing from Kennedy family member to Kennedy family-sanctioned, duly-anointed, Enlightened One, back to legitimate family member, and do whatever is necessary to prevent another “Clinton” from sneaking in there when nobody’s looking, ever again. You never know what “those people” might have planned for Chelsea. They’re sneaky, you know.
Even though, I seem to remember that Kennedy “entitlement” thing didn’t work out too well for Ted’s presidential hopes, did it?