Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHas McClellan Handed Victory to Obama?
Shock and awe envelop Washington upon the publication of a political memoir. The shock has nothing to do with the contents of What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, which do little more than confirm the obvious about the demi-truths, distortions and lies of omission that prefaced the invasion of Iraq. What inspires the awe is that Scott McClellan, the author, was the ultra-loyal press secretary to George Bush.
What we have here, would you believe, is a one-time leading spin doctor yielding to an attack of frenzied honesty. All American trends swiftly cross the Atlantic, so let's look forward with glee to Alastair Campbell producing the most dizzying literary volte face since Leonard Nimoy deftly followed I Am Not Spock! with a second autobiography (I Am Spock!).
Mr McClellan's portrait of President Bush, an old and beloved Texas chum, will be spookily familiar to close students of Ali's ex-boss. Mr Bush was less an out-and-out teller of whoppers, he explains, than an arrogant, self-deceiving fantasist. He believed things to be true because he wanted them to be true and kept insisting they were true, and no reasonable doubt or hard evidence could touch his certainty. Small wonder that he and Mr Tony Blair hit it off so splendidly at that very first Camp David date, when Blair squeezed his gonads into those hideous jeans. Psychologically, they are identical twins.
The psychology behind Mr McClellan's bean-spilling is the source of much discussion in the States. You can hardly avoid asking why he didn't mention any of this five years ago, and inevitably he trots out the defence that didn't quite cut it at Nuremberg. He was only obeying orders, but now this devout Christian (who'd have guessed?) wishes to cleanse his soul of the untruths he obediently spouted about WMD, the betrayal of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, and much else besides. Those on the wrong end of his reflections, such as that indescribably poisonous political puff adder Karl Rove, naturally characterise him as a money-grubber seeking revenge for being sacked.
To be frank, Mr McClellan's motivations are of no more interest than his judgement that the war was a grotesque strategic blunder (ya think?), let alone yet more angry debate about the propaganda that preceded it. More intriguing is the effect his book might have on the imminent fight for the presidency.
In the early hours of next Wednesday, when the results from the last two primaries come in, Barack Obama will have a majority of all delegates, pledged and super, and will be declared the winner. Who knows whether Hillary will concede or continue her maniacal charge -- "c'est horrifique," as Marshall Canrobert didn't quite put it, "mais ce n'est pas la guerre" -- to have the disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated. Either way, America and the world beyond will wake to "Obama vs McCain: Let Battle Commence" front pages, and further resistance from the Hillbillies will be ignored for what it is ... the futile screechings of the mad aunt and uncle in the Democratic attic.
Allow me to apply now for a teasing paragraph in a November Private Eye by stating that I am sure Obama will be the next President. I have been (mostly, alas, due to wishful thinking: I make no bones about being an Obamaniac) since before he announced his candidacy. But now I'm convinced he will win by a landslide -- not a British-style landslide, whereby an overwhelming parliamentary majority can be won with about 40 per cent of the votes, but by the 55-45 per cent margin that constitutes an American one.
There are several reasons for this wild overconfidence. Somehow, despite being a quarter of a century the younger, Obama is incomparably more presidential than John McCain. Already, despite all his troubles (the Rev Wright, dodgy Chicago connections, Michelle's carelessly unpatriotic words, his own candid thoughts on small town guns 'n' God bitterness, Hillary's relentless efforts to diminish him), he is level or leads in most polls.
The second the nomination is settled, Obama will receive a massive popularity boost just as enquiring eyes turn to Mr McCain, an oddly flaky, gaffe-prone figure whose knack for confusing Iraq with Iran and Sunni with Shia isn't brilliantly designed to reinforce his self-proclaimed foreign policy advantage, but has been largely overlooked in all the Hillary-Obama drama. The media might even dwell more ferociously on the former spiritual adviser of his own who said that Hitler did God's work by propelling the Jews towards the Promised Land ... an ironic echo of Martin Luther King that won't play so well with the crucial Jewish vote in Florida. As that legendarily prescient political tipster Rupert Murdoch observed this week when tipping Obama to win, Mr McCain "has a lot of problems".
The real killer for the Senator from Arizona, however, will surely be the incumbent. To have any chance of becoming the 44th President, Mr McCain must find a way to distance himself from the 43rd. Given his support for 95 per cent of Bush proposals in the Senate and the lack of economic policy distinction between the two, this was never going to be easy. Now it's a great deal harder.
Where Mr McClellan's book is a potential nightmare for him is in so far as it will pre-empt, neutralise and even boomerang his primary line of attack. Unquestionably he will try to petrify the public into electing him, as Mr Bush did four years ago according to the Rove architectural blueprint. But every time Mr McCain attempts to induce fear by styling his opponent as an Ahmedinijad-hugging ingénue incapable of keeping America safe from her enemies, Senator Obama will counterstrike that it is McCain -- greedy swallower of all the phoney claims about Iraq described by Scott McClellan -- who is the real naíve. In fact he did just that yesterday, citing the book in response to a cheap shot about him not having been to Iraq since 2006.
After Bush, Obama will ask, do you honestly want a bellicose Beach Boy humming "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" as he arranges the family snaps on the Oval Office desk? The Senator paints me as babyishly hopeful that everything will come up roses, he'll say, so tell me who's the guy who bought the promise that US troops would have rose petals showered over them as they marched into Baghdad? Aren't you just sick of all the scarifying mendacity laid bare in that former press secretary's book?
It was fearmongering that persuaded the American people to support the war, and fearmongering that conned them into re-electing George Bush. Fool me once, shame on you, as Dubya once so hilariously struggled to articulate. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me thrice? Are you kidding?
--Matthew Norman
©independent.co.uk
69 Comments so far
Show AllBUT, BUT, BUT, MR. NORMAN THIS IS AMERICA AND the recent speech written by Chris Hedges as Furnam University, printed in Truth Dig, says it so well for all of us who fighting the cooperate monster and what it has created - a planet that is a "World On Edge" my documentary one that covets acquisitiveness and consumer ideology as a reason for existence, as an end in itself.
Humanity is in peril because the USA elected George Bush as president with the complicity of the media which shows the lowest level of this corporate mentality that is so much an affront to humanity, a measure of the levels of intelligence of Americans, even though it was an illegal fifty-percent that elected him to office. Bush's election to office showed the flaws of this so-called democracy, and the level that the corporate empire will sink to be able to operate with impunity in the world, to rape the very survival of humanity for their greed-driven existence. This was notably seen at the Exxon hearings before the senate and the shareholders meeting at Exxon where the lowest level of corporate responsibility was fought so hard as to show that it even sickens the stomachs of the very wealthy.
All of this to continue a global economy, known as globalization with ideas of value promulgated by a country that is two hundred and fifty years old, led by an old shock jock, born again drunkard, with little regard for intellectual thought, or the very values that spiritual thought should imbue. Welcome to America!
In the present Congress and in the blogs most people avoid reality and don't really deal with the issues head on. Most are still looking for the magic technological bullet that will save the American economy so the USA can continue on the way it's going with ever more growth and ever more and greater GDP as the bankers, advise. Even some scientists think we can continue this way of life unchanged if we just, ease a little bit on energy consumption and wait until we figure it out. SOOO, TURN OUT THAT LIGHT AND DRIVE TO THE 7-11 IN YOUR HUMMER!
There are some who say it does not matter who one votes for in this political system, yes squander your vote on in another close election with a vote for Nader - We all know how perfect this man is and that he will be able to get things done! - If Nader were elected he would not be able to enact any meaningful legislation of consequence, but i thank him for his service to the American people. Not a single bill would become law because he would not have a congress that would give him the right time. It would be a fair day in hell to get anything done. With the leadership of Nancy Pelosi's, helping him, it would be worse.
Moreover, however bad Obama may be, there are no illusions that he is and must be, in the hands of the Democratic machine, but at least the platform will offer some relief for the masses and there is some hope, even now felt by the world, for the future and the environment.
Should Obama lose you have eight more years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare, that is just the facts so lets stop the idealistic nonsense offered up on the star-struck silver screen and your media driven nonsense TV and get real, this is the USA. There are too many important issues that require change to take chances. But some of you here have so much grand illusion that you feel that these past seven years, thanks to Nader in part, and Gore's ineptitude, were worth the experiment?
Nader is not the answer in a failed political system backed by corporate mentality that fifty percent of Americans have bought into must be changed quickly. The congress is where the laws of greed are enacted, such as it is, it's the system that must be changed and whether or not one likes or agrees with Obama, he has been chosen by the Demorepubs to try to change this woebegone imperfect idea of a system. Americans can be and are a much better people than their leaders have shown the world. For the first time Obama is suggesting only some of the changes that must be made.
The USA has some very serious problem that involves helping the rest of the world understand that they are not alone with the problems we all face. They must know once again and understand the people of the USA care! Obama has alluded to those issue recently. But the most important issue of all, who doubt Obama-for the first time I think in the annals of recent history or memory-the young people are involved with the democratic process. They believe in what this country could become and I with all my remaining breath will help them to do it. I too refuse to give up on hope what I once believed in and fought for, and what could become the global dream instead of the failed selfish American Dream that has become the global nightmare!
The future belongs to the young and it will be they who must take up the mantle of true change, which Obama offers and later in this primary and presidential race, all the others echoed! They the young want to make this country become what all of us here once hoped it would be, like Gore Vidal. So many of us who write here are disappointed, but for those who like what Rev. Wright said, when he spoke to the issues of his life, had to be bitter and critical about the past, I agree. He simply says many of things that Dr. Martin Luther King spoke to. Michelle Obama, recently being attacked and will no doubt be attacked by the Republicrats, is referring obliquely to American racism, which still exists but thanks to Obama is going. What Michelle Obama experienced is typical by white racist America that refuses to look in the mirror although it is now cracking not only for racism but for corporatism in favor of humanism as well.
I search my mind in wonder at the scientific and social perfection that has been attained in this forum. We have glorious information at out fingertips to tell us in great detail how we are destroying the world for human habitation. Since these blogs are a cross section of the so-called erudite community and writers who combined make the right-wing decisions for those who have been conditioned to find meaning by trying to think, I am amused with the petty squabbles undertaken here to prove that one has the intellectual rectitude to tell other fellows how to deal with crisis.
Having had a our say at the computer, well satisfied that our studious application of the accumulated data offered here has been properly digested, showing our intellects to be above the fray we continue to defend our miniscule positions of rectitude. This often involves cursing and slurs at others for some, impugning character for others, showing our Republican party credentials for some - we know that that brand is truly American-or showing our professional credentials, engineering or letters offered in proper ego sneering mode, in some instances-a group brought together to speak to the problems of humanity facing disaster. How good, a blog (definition: a collection of opinion based nonsense that lands right beside the point!) - as rarely seen in the annals human development.
Certainly a places of higher learning have produced great advances in species development but at the same time, based on the imperfect nature of thought a have allowed these advances and breakthroughs in science to turn those developments back on their creators. After a successful blog, the writers, having satisfied themselves with their contributions to the greater good, turn to the financial media to see whether their fortunes have gained significantly during their pursuit of ego gratification, so they may live out their days peacefully amused, as the remainder of the world suffers the agony of western invention and greed. As spoken from the White House, "let them eat cake" and may they choke, on it as their Asthma inhalers have lost their ability to forestall the wonders of air pollution.
I find my attention drawn to other thoughts when I read the bickering of whether the methane is spewing, leaking, puffing, or gaining greater more importance as it impacts on the climate change. I think of the institutions of science and the government led by a group of evil men and women from both parties, who in the pursuit of power, would care so little about humanity that the present leader "evildoer" would veto a bill to reduce the impact of work to limit emissions of the very gasses that would essentially destroy their children's lives. When one speaks of evil it cannot be greater than to directly affect the life of one's progeny, never mind the world where it will exist. Cold-blooded reptiles offer more protection and care for their offspring.
I have commented on previous science presented here on CD associated with climate change since this is my work. Many here echo many of my thoughts, as those above, associating GDP with CO2 but it must be recognized this condition is also associated with the laws of the USA, the governing establishment and the values of the culture which would vote for "Wall Street profit" above human survival. The places of higher learning and scientific development also teach successive generations value systems, the rule of law necessary for any society and should be discussing human purpose and meaning as it has developed over the eons of species advance.
This time we are the catalyst for our own extinction. The Chinese are producing more coal plants that will substantially diminish their fresh water supplies as well as adding to the globes greenhouse gasses, is a grand example of this environment be damned global economy. The ethanol versus food production shows us that the chance to change rapidly is out of our grasp. We have all done it!
Who has turned off their life style or their 401ks? America's selfish opportunism has turned love to stone? Will we spin to oblivion on a dead planet, probably? Where is the profit to be found here can someone from Wall Street explain this? 
Their is a fundamental feedback problem between the economic styles that Americans are trying to get the world to accept; a consumer disposable auto centered existence, and its affect on continued life.
Sadly, the most important survival mechanism which are associated with those ideas of higher levels in thought are absent in most current curriculums, or considered so abstract they rarely find their ways into the deliberations that are involved with the discussions surrounding, for example, the use of coal to power a culture or society (most of the so-called developed world). This however is appropriate if we consider that we use Jurassic energy conversion to continue the existence of Jurassic thinkers in the present day.
I am still suffering from "shock and awe" of the "Stern Report" commissioned by the UK for the "edification" of the global community, with regard to: the dangers of climate change to the world economy. Many of you remember the UK our partners in war, global hegemony, imperialism, lying to the electorate and also a great coal and oil burning culture. The economic report was trying to let the G8 economy down easily by accepting anywhere from three to five degrees of warming. It found that the economy could stand this amount of warming as inevitable but by acting immediately through a "cap in trade" philosophy the West could continue on its merry-way to greater consumption unabated. This philosophy is flawed from the outset by accepting pollution at all, particularly under this present circumstance of a ten-year window for survival.
It must be remembered that James Hansen has warned that western culture, now joined by the Chinese and Indians, has a TEN-YEAR window to radically shift its economic direction and choices of energy into a less Jurassically intense mentality. However, Hansen too thinks we have time to retool and believes we have until 2050 to make these changes. I have reminded him that less than five years ago we had until 2100 to make these changes. We have lost 50 years of that projection in two years. At the current rate of scientific perfectitude the forty-year time frame remaining may be down to the ten years, Hansen has predicted from the outset of his research. To his credit his measurement abilities have been enhanced by the Grace satellite-greater technology to deal with greater technological disaster.
Kem:
"ASS", "Lying shit", "no wisdom or intellect", "I'm insulting you? LOL".
Yes, you are insulting me, LOL NOT.
All I did was ask you a rational answer to a simple, honest question:
Why do you think Obama (arguably the most skilled politician of his generation, ahead in every poll) has to lose in November against the neocon answer to Bob Dole, and often refered to as "Bush III".
All I received was a wiseass non-answer ("because he'll get less votes!").
When I deduce that it might be that you are racially prejudiced -like any number of Clinton's "working, hard working white" people-, a supposition brought on by your smartass non-answer, you go bezerk.
I'm insulting you? LOL. I didn't insult you, that was an obvious observation, where you ASS-umed, that because someone favors Hillary you say they are in love with her. You started the crap here with me with an off the wall commnent, by implying that I have a problem with Obama's skin color. ___ Or did you forget. You played the race card with me. WHY?
Now you accuse me of yelling at people who have a different opinion than I do, Show me where I do that. I only "yell" at people who attack me first. I fully explained how skin color is NEVER an issue with me and it is both ignorant and extremely rude of you to even suggest it. You have never offered to apologize. ___ Piss off.
You want to know why I doubt Obama can beat McCain, ____ go read the other Obama articles here. Finally, I am not the only one who believes that. I don't wish to discuss it with you.
And for those of you who want out, move to Costa Rica. This place may be nuts but its more real than life up in the 1st world. rich@tropicaldevelopments.com. I can help.
Okay so I never get much of a chance to send comments. I live far out in the jungle in Costa Rica and have to go to the internet and save these pages to my memory card and read them at home. But one thing is really driving me nuts and I have to send something.
For those of you who are always commenting about how Obama is nothing more than the status quo:
Get off your asses and do something about it. Do you think that simply by telling people to vote Nader that you´re any better that those you bash here in the forums? Give me a break. You know as much as I do that the only way to change your messed up country is revolution. You know that Nader doesn´t stand a rainbow´s chance in hell. The thing that bugs me so much is that you all sound so full of yourselves when you bash those who promote Obama, when all you are doing is promoting the impossible. Nader will NEVER get elected as long as your country is FASCIST! And the only way to remove the fascists is by revolution.
Now I don´t think Obama is going to instantly turn your country into the one that you all think that it is (the biggest delusion since WWII) but get real and either get him elected so you can start to pull your country back to reality or start dropping bombs and burning buildings.
You´re all just as hypocritical as those that you bash.
Kem, not only are you constantly losing your bearings and yelling at people who differ slighly from your point of view, now you're insulting me.
Still waiting for a rational explanation from you as to why "Obama can't win in November".
Hi ~Athiest~, I agree with you about a Hillary/Obama ticket, either way will be necessary, but I seriously doubt ~Siouxrose~ hates anybody. She has a wonderful soul.
There is cause for doubts about Hillary, but I do believe most of the causes are invalid, they are often lying shit tossed by the likes of ~Wonderers~.
"ASS-umer" is the proper word for you ~WONDER 5789~. Why not respond intelligently to the, "in the congressional record" words of Clinton which ~Athiest~ posted?
You are among the most obtuse and rude bloggers we have here at this site. You display no wisdom or intellect, just mostly anger and venom and for no useful purpose.
There is nothing at all wrong with you supporting Obama, likewise there is nothing wrong with others supporting Hillary if that is their choice. We can disagree and offer facts and opinions without the "you love her" bullshit.
Atheist,
You fell in love with this woman, and nothing I or anyone could tell you could make you change your outlook.
I personally don't care for Obama anymore than for Kucinich, Edwards, or Gore, or any other decent, intelligent, non war-mongering, non corrupt candidate, -a definition which unfortunately excludes McCain and Clinton.
Out of Irak now
Talk with Iran
Impeach Bush-Cheney
Siouxrose wrote: "Hillary is NOT a friend to feminists if feminism is taken to bring a higher understanding to humanism."
It doesn't matter what YOU think. You hate Clinton so of course you're going to disregard all of her good work for women and you will come up with some crazy personal test to measure her feminism. Well I completely disagree with you. Check out NOW's summary:
http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/hillary/issues.html
Like KEM, I too do not "worship" candidates. (You confuse the Clinton supporters for the Obamabots, who DO worship their candidate.) And I am not expecting her to be a mommy, I'm expecting her to be a strong leader just as I would expect any man running for office to be.
If you want to talk about not putting war first, then let's go back to Clinton's allegedly scandalous "vote for war" ... if you paid attention to what she actually said prior to voting, you would know that she was against the war. Her words are in the public record, the Obamabots and Obama himself insist on ignoring them and thus perpetuating the myth. Just another reason to not vote for him.
"So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option." ... "I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq." ... "If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition." ... "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
Now Sioux, tell me how this wasn't compassionate or empathetic.
Media Matters has a great, though outdated, summary of myths about Clinton:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130005
As for you, Wonder, you'd be wise to accept that a person can be a liberal and prefer Clinton over Obama, rather than ASSume that anyone who disagrees with you is a reich-winger.
I'm predicting an Obama loss unless Clinton is on the ticket with him.
Maybe there won't be an election in November????
KEM: It's a mess... I won't even put a prediction in on this one, and predicting is MY business as a 21st century Cassandra!
I agree with that ~Sue~. My worry is Obama will lose to McCain. An Obama Hillary ticket might work but I don't see that happening right now. Obama has a lot of problems that Hillary dared not mention, but you know the Repubs will broadcast them and come election day they do vote. ___ We'll see.
KEM: I was quoting another poster and bringing up the point that Hillary is NOT a friend to feminists if feminism is taken to bring a higher understanding to humanism. It's about empathy and compassion for people of all stripes and both genders, it's about decency and policies that do not put war first. For me, that's the quintessential litmus test. I of course care much about environmental policies/energy systems, economic agendas, the criminal justice system, etc but since WAR is the SUPREME crime from which so many others flow (like the recent curtailment of so many citizens' rights and breakdown of Constitutionally-granted liberties) I will start with that.
I agree, too, that there is not a great deal of difference on paper between Obama and Hillary, but just the idea of a fresh face, and one who has grown up with a bi-cultural reference point, added to the PR factor that would enhance worldwide diplomacy to have OTHER than the 2 dynasties in office... well, although I prefer Nader or Kucinich, I am not gambling on giving McCain BOMBING room. The guy is a sick, twisted cookie with about as much spiritual evolution as a rattle snake. HE would bring America down faster... Obama will make SOME concessions, though several brilliant posters on CD have really made unimpeachable cases for the fact that our 2-party system is a good cop/bad cop political farce theater that ultimately serves not the people, but its paying corporate money masters. That Titanic will sink of its own weight... oil being a factor. Climate, another. The larger cycles of time and their thematic coding, another. Indeed we live in INTERESTING times, both blessing and curse that constitutes.
Just watched McCain talking on CNN and maybe you are all correct, he gets worse every day. Obama probably will beat him. It was pitiful.
You know ~SUE~, I have voted for a lot of presidents and have never 'worshiped' any of them. I voted for the party I wanted to place Supreme Court justices and for other important issues.
Guess that's because Bush has balls ~Alexlawyer~?
Or is it because he has a lack of decency, intellect, common sense, sobriety and honesty?
Oops, gotta be careful. Someone might accuse me of not liking the color of his skin.
America has been ruled according to conservative Christian values for the past 7 years, and what have we gotten? Aggressive wars, the slaughter of over a million people, most of whom were innocent civilians, torture, illegal spying on citizens, repudiation of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, reduced health care for the poor and veterans, huge tax breaks for the very rich, massive deficit spending, paltry aid to a devastated city, suppression of science, a major recession and the contempt of the world.
It was the rise of the political religious right that has landed us in this catastrophe.
WONDER 67 said, "worshiping a woman who sold herself out to the worst of masculinity (war-mongering, cluster-bomb-loving, money-worshiping insanity)." I whole-heartedly agree with this perception. There's more to character and identity than genitals.
Atheist,
Do you support Condoleeza Rice? are you an Ann Coulter reader? Is one a misogynist for despising them? Is one anti-American for despising Bush?
Is it possible for you to see moral and political issues independently of the outward shape of the person expressing them??
What a deeply ironic and embarassing caricature of feminism the Clinton die-hard women have become:
worshiping a woman who sold herself out to the worst of masculinity (war-mongering, cluster-bomb-loving, money-worshiping insanity).
What a lack of confidence in womanhood to think that a woman has to ape phony, deadly manhood (threaten to "totally obliterate" a nation, for instance) in order to be approved.
What a lack of confidence in women not to see there are and will be more and more women to vote for, but whose values are and will be progressive, and not neocon (male) lite.
Throughout the 90's I admired Hillary (and Bill) a lot. Voted for her in 2000.
To my dismay, and the dismay of many, however, she became a member of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" that tried so hard to destroy her and her husband.
Her complicity and/or silence during the worst administration in US history was deafening.
What next ~ATHIEST~? Have you heard how Obama got elected to the Illinois State Senate? Talk about mean and dirty politics, he makes the Clintons seem like Sunday school kids. He claims it wasn't dirty at all. Oh really? It's far worse there than Texas, Florida or Philadelphia politics.
I don't think McClellan has handed the victory to Obama, but I believe the DNC has just handed the general to McCain with their decisions on the Florida and Michigan voters. Those state's voters by a majority will now not vote in the general election and many who do vote will vote for McCain and McCain wins.
They refused to only count half the votes, but they ended up giving each voter "half" a vote. Which is the same damn thing. ___LOL,___ A lesson on how to be obtuse and stupid at the same time.
Btw, Obama's church had been under investigation by the IRS for electioneering, but the IRS cleared them just a week ago. I think this new debacle (that assh*le Pfleger spouting off) should re-open the investigation. In fact, I think they should have a permanent IRS presence to monitor all Sunday services. Take 'em down.
Btw, just read that Obama announced that he has resigned from the church ! So now not only did he throw his spiritual advisor under the bus, he's thrown the whole church ! Is he going to try to tell us that in the 20 years he attended services there, and in all of the other time he's spent with the church staff, he never heard the anti-white racist hate speech ?? BULLSH*T ! He's a slimy one, that Obama. He'll do ANYTHING to get elected. He also has incredibly bad judgement ... Rezko, TUCC ... what next ?
Wonder, your misogyny was already revealed in your prior post. No sense trying to cover it up now.
As for Clinton's religion, she's not a member of "The Family". Do some actual research instead of relying on the Clinton-hating bloggers and op-ed authors. It's just your attempt to cover up Obama's outrageous religious connections. You can't deny Obama belongs to an extremist anti-white racist church, the evidence has been blasted into our homes via MSM for all of us to witness with our own eyes and ears, so your only recourse is to try to "prove" that Clinton is worse. Sorry, won't work. And don't bother to point me to the innuendo-filled and fact-sparse blogs and op-eds, I've seen them already.
Atheist,
The reason I will never vote for Hillary Clinton is her poor moral and political choices:
-Active support or deafening silence as the most famous politician in America re: invasion of Iraq, Patriot act, Guantanamo, shredding of the Constitiution, global warming, etc.
-Active association with and support from Big Oil, Big Pharma, the arms industry, Fox news, Rove, Lieberman, etc.
-A dishonest, divisive, financially disastrous primary campaign run by a Blackwater associate.
Nothing to do with misogyny. I hate what she STANDS FOR. She is Bush Lite.
I was a strong supporter of Ségolène Royal (French Socialist candidate against Sarkozy in 2007).
Not because she was a woman (although that was a bonus), but because I loved what she STOOD FOR.
How odd that an atheist would be so unconditional about a candidate belonging to a Christo-fascist sect, "The Family".
I have already posted numerous blogs as to why I don't think Obama can defeat McCain here on several other threads ~WONDER6789~ and I figured most here don't want me to go into it anymore. In addition, there is nothing I posted here for you or anyone else to "assume" I worry about skin color or race.
So don't tell me I'm losing my bearings. You are the assumer here, not I. Don't assume, you make a fool of yourself and you have posted many decent comments on this site.
Your post about "WHITE" women is your problem not mine and again you are "assuming" they have "moral" problems. Hillary has lots of supporters and has the same or even a higher number of popular votes than Obama has.
Like I said, I have a lot of problems with many politicians and neo-cons and they are WHITE. You failed to reply to that fact. Do you think I don't like white people too? If so, please don't tell my wife, children or parents.
As for Matthew Norman's premise ... of course not ! McClellan's book will have zero effect on the election.
However, the continuing anti-white racist circus at Obama's church might very well have crippled him for good.
Wonder, your notion of "rational" obliterated by your misogyny. Going through a divorce right now ? Last girl you asked out turned you down ?
Whine all you want, insult us all you want, but you're going to eventually have to face the reality: Clinton has virtually the same number of supporters as Obama, and if she's not on the ticket, most of us Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. We know that if the positions were swapped and Clinton had the slight lead, most of you Obama supporters wouldn't vote for her, you've all been threatening this since Iowa.
Anyone who thinks thinks McClellan's tell-all will make a difference hasn't read "Deer Hunting With Jesus" and still overestimates the intelligence of the average voter.
Imagine a corporation run like the US Gov't and you'd pretty much come up with same kind of problems... except it'd go out of business sooner.
You're losing your bearings, Kem.
I find it curious that you cannot give a rational reason why Obama cannot, according to you, beat that old corrupt fart, while Hillary (deeply hated by both the left and the right, and whose campaign was a signature disaster) would, in contradiction with what every recent poll indicates.
The moral blindness of older white women (who happen to be Hillary's die-hard public) is real.
Hillary could be advocating the total obliteration of Europe and they would still think she was entitled to "the same job as her husband".
I see on a recent thread Cindy Sheehan wrote that you refer to older white women as "morally blind".
Apparantly is it YOU who has a problem with skin color ~WONDER6789~.
NO, you are 100% wrong ~WONDER 6789~ and I am offended by your question. __ Why ask it? Don't assume and insult me and play a race card with me please.
I was having some fun here and yes I believe Hillary can beat McCain and Obama cannot, even though McCain is a brain damaged neo-con idiot. That is my personal opinon and I may be totally wrong about it. I based my opinion upon what has transpired in the Demo primary race.
I don't like McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Pelosi, Huck a Berry, Hitler, and lots of other politicans and they're all white. So would you ask me if I have a problem with their skin color? ____ Why not?
I have no problem with race or the skin color of anyone. As a matter of fact, read my post on the lead article today or go to the archives and type in my name and read any of the over 2,000 comments I have blogged here. Your queston is totally out of line so knock it off.
WHITE BEARD: Americans may deserve McCain, but does the rest of the world? I hope Divine intervention co-opts any voting machine irregularities this time, with Mercury retrograde style blips of their own!
REBELNOW: It seemed to me the script-writers for the Indiana Jones film--where the FORCE is let out of the Arc of the Covenant so that the nazis will not be free to use it for more harm reflects at least SOME of the underlying occult message of SPEAR OF DESTINY.
My interest in the book is what Steiner related, that no modern day historian could understand the powers drawn from those who had aligned with "the dark side." I realize this myself sometimes in THIS forum. I am totally willing to concede in areas where others are better informed than I am. History is NOT my cup of tea. I turned off a lot because the redundancy of war made me sick as a student. Therefore when some challenge ME in my area of expertise, when all they can use for their tools of attack is prejudice and their own limited understanding, I recognize that these sorts of minds are locked into their own paradigm, somewhat tortured, read more but it's like living inside a padded cell or room with many mirrors... they are still trapped by an intellect that demands all Truth conform to their personally endorsed parameters (or methodologies).
KEM, it seems Obama's skin color is a problem for you. Am I right?
KEM, Why so you think Americans are insanely ignorant? I mean, Bush, ..I mean, Dole, ..uh, McCain is really embarassing. America isn't that masochistic.
I watched some of the interview of McClellan on Oberman, I actually started to feel sorry for the guy, maybe he's trying to be genuine. That feeling was short lived after remembering that he was a participant in helping unleash the horrors that we are still engaged in. It will be interesting to see where this goes, if anywhere.
Siouxrose, good analysis, you may be correct, McCain could just be a throwaway, "Send in what's his name, we can't win this one anyway. Besides, let some dimocrat deal with the fallout, then we come back on 2012 with a vengeance."
BTW Sioux, (off topic, but it's late so..) you mentioned Ravenscroft book "Spear of Destiny" on an earlier post. That really brought back some memories. I read it years ago and found it fascinating. I'm not sure how much is actually true, but what an intriguing book; psychic battles with Rudolf Steiner, Nazi's searching Tibet for occult masters and taking the Buddhist swastika as their symbol, Hitler channeling Lucifer, fulfilling a destiny to revive some ancient medieval cult. I'm surprised there hasn't been a movie based on it.
Don't bring her to my area ~Rebel~.
Anyway, she's the next prez. We'll have Bill back, _____ just like Showboat.
Some good posts. Fellow CD readers, do you wonder why it is that the Republicans came up with McCain? Sure, lots of their big players have been recently under various kinds of indictments, or left to take cushy better paying jobs as lobbyists, BUT... McCain is such a loser. It's one thing to claim you're a warrior when the GROUNDS for war make sense and have a legitimate following. But now? What's the statistic this week, that like 70% are agains the war? So to take this old puppet out and try to costume him as warrior (like Bush as a GI Joe on that aircraft carrior in a straight-out-of-a-bad Hollywood "Mission Impossible" set) is rather inane.
Maybe they don't want or expect to win. Maybe it's as a few highly strategic CD posters put it, it's the dems turn to play good cop and roll back a few of the many recent infringements on citizens' Constitutional rights.
And letting a Democrat become the fall guy/gal for the egregious policies of Bush (some started by Clinton in all fairness) just paves the way for more rightwing power grabs UP the road. At the moment due to gas prices and some truth leaks in media the public is not as hypnotized as usual... time for the elites to throw a bone to keep the pack quiet, and use Obama as excellent international PR to begin to reverse the well-earned position of the ugly American, prone to blunt brute force on slim to none provocation.
Mr. Norman had me laughing out loud. Truly. I liked his article and I thought, hopefully, that he had it right. The American people will be smart enough to see that McCain is a semi-senile old man, who, while even though he is better than Bush (very minimally), is unreliably indecisive in his flipping from one opinion to another on the same topic. He cannot beat Obama unless, as I postulate from your comments, Americans are that stupid.
When I read your responses and comments, those really brought me down. Come on, please, tell me that the rest of the world does not have to put up with McCain (another Bush-backers' sock puppet) for four years or his expiry date (which ever comes first)?
Many, if not most, in the rest of the world would be thrilled to have Obama as prez of the US. While he is not the optimal choice for the leader with the most influence in the world(they were deleted by your media), he is at least watchable. He does not make one want to "toss one's cookies" like Bush does. He does not seem to want to bomb the world in preparation for Armageddan (however that is spelt) like McCain/Bush does. He doesn't even seem to believe that god talks to him 'specially.' If you Americans cannot come to vote for him because he is not White, then it is time for you to get over it (the colour thing) and do the rest of the world a favour.
Please give us someone whom we can a)respect, b)has a modicum of intelligence and truthfulness when he speaks, and c)is not another dynastic character (the better to believe that democracy survives in the US).
rebelnow,
thanks for the reality check - as an ethical vegetarian i also do not kill anything. merely a political metaphor b/c if this person, after 6/3, believes that she can even be elected to the post of dog catcher in harlem - after 6/3, she's mistaken. the shoot to kill parable was related to american attitudes towards the wild, unknown. (sarcasm on - especially considering hill/bills remarks in SD).
i love your approach, trash can and all... how appropriate.
billhill in the high desert w/ 6 quarts of h2o and no gps. heaven... i only wish i could watch it on a webcam over the inet...thank you...
...peace...
iowablackbird, for the record I don't shoot, nor kill the rattlers (or any animals actually). I catch them with a snake catcher (a six foot pole with a clamp at the end), put them in a trash barrel, then bring them about 4 miles into the back country and release them. I only catch the ones that are in the immediate vicinity of foot traffic or buildings, otherwise I leave them alone.
So I'm not advocating shooting anyone, however, it may be a good idea to snag the Clintons by the scruff of the neck, put them into a trash barrel and drive them to a remote location. By the time they make it back maybe the election will be over.
Sorry Kem, but she's really annoying.
"You can hardly avoid asking why he didn't mention any of this five years ago, and inevitably he trots out the defence that didn't quite cut it at Nuremberg. He was only obeying orders, but now this devout Christian (who'd have guessed?)"
thank you matthew norman for a refreshing piece of brit humor. yeah baby keep feeding it to us scottie. the kindling's been prepared, the logs are placed, the sun is setting - hey man - got a light?
the bush regime will go up (is going up) in flames. i know lots of people are skeptical of dem retribution. a healthy majority in the congress helps - if it doesn't at least it's better than the outright SQ (mccain playing bushjr for 4 years, more spying, maybe a war w/ iran, courts stacked - of course if obama wins larry tribe might sit on the SC.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe
----------------
Daniel David May 30th, 2008 2:14 pm
is the word psychotherapist anywhere in Democratic Party ? it's not the dem party's responsibility to tame the clintons. the dem party should distance themselves from the clintons (like when you throw the anchor off the side of a sailboat into the mud, away from the boat).
the clintons are looney tunes/shakespearian thesbians that need to be distanced from the party asap. also considering deans, 'grassroots' - 'untraditional' campaign techniques (inet for money, organizing person to person - block to block) have paid off,
it would be a perfect time for dems to push for more progressive legislation, while distancing themselves from DLC style politics. it's a perfect marriage, especially considering the majority obama very conceivably will have in the congress .
why would the dems feel compelled to 'tame' the clintons. shoot em and be done with it (wild animals and all) - i agree w/ rebelnow's (3:41pm) sentiment.
and Kem - he will win....
..peace...
"I have a deep uneasy feeling that the repubs and neo-cons may maintain power over this land of the sheep for another near decade"
Don't focus on the 'repubs and neo-cons'. Focus on the shadowy forces behind them. Bush was merely propped up and promoted into the office. Its not like he was a visionary leader who led a long movement to reach the White House. They picked him, groomed him and put him there. (Sounds a lot like Obama, doesn't it?)
So, its irrelevant whether the 'repubs and neo-cons' stay in power. The powerful who really run the country will gladly replace them with compliant Democrats. The key is that these are just puppets that do the bidding of the powerful who put them there.
For instance, this is why during the 90's when Clinton replaced Bush Sr. you saw that a) there was very little roll-back of the policies of the Reagan years, and b)the Clinton's advanced the same agenda with NAFTA, WTO, Welfare Reform, Banking Reform, Telecom Reform etc.
The only thing that had happened was that the Republican brand had become unpopular and a new face with a new brand had to be put into power. They continued the same policies until the Republicans had rebuilt their brand and the powerful could put them back into power with Bush Jr.
Just like this year. Or just like the 2006 Congressional elections.
"meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
PS ... No matter whether its Obama, Hillary or McCain, its still the same old song ....
"meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Unless the American people rebel and elect a non-corporate-bought candidate, it ain't gonna matter what the face is on the new puppet that's going to replace the Cowboy Bush puppet.
You don't think corporate America and Wall St has pumped Obama's campaign full of millions of dollars to elect a candidate that's really going to change things, do ya?
I couldn't beleve the public would vote Bush in for a 2nd term, and two months ago I felt a reasonable certainty that the repubs were out of the white house for awhile after next january. But now...?? I don't know. My faith in the American people (us)is dwindling. With the crushing gas/food/prescriptions/credit rates
on the continuous rise and no one seeming to give a damn enough to FORCE these corporations and their lackeys in D.C. with an uprising--destructive if necessary--well, again, I don't know. I have a deep uneasy feeling that the repubs and neo-cons may maintain power over this land of the sheep for another near decade. Which, by the way, would simply push this nation over the brink of confused insanity. I was confident not long ago that we were ready to elect an african-american of the caliber of Obama to office, knowing, of course, that not much in the way of everyday life for most of us would really change..but it seemed that he could bring a general breath of fresh air to the nation, if nothing else. But again, I just don't know. Kucinich was the only guy in the dem crowd that had any real 21st century vision, but we saw how far that gets around here, didn't we? Somebody reinstill some optimism in me if you can.
I'd say Obama has it sewn up, and has for some time. Follow the corporate money, it always tells you the winner. At first it was split between Obama and Hillary. But months ago after the early rounds of primaries it swung decisively behind Obama. And the Dems have been accumulating much larger amounts of corporate bribes than the Rethugs all along. Anyone remember when McCain had to scale back his campaign because his fund raising was way below targets (last year I think). That was because the corporate money had already abandoned the Republicans.
Besides, in another couple of weeks the Obamabots and the Hillarybots will stop sounded like complete morons out here when the party hacks called 'superdelegates' announce Obama as the winner.
Obama won't win becaue he won't get enough votes ~WONDER 6789~.
I have a crush on all gals, ~Sphne~ that is irrevelant. She'll get enough votes if Obama is her VP. Of course the brain damaged Demo leaders will screw up the Florida/Michigan deal tomorrow, totally piss off the voters and McCain will take both of those key states.
Anyway - all those with less than half a brain won't pay any more attention to this revelation than they have to any of the others.
"What we have here, would you believe, is a one-time leading spin doctor yielding to an attack of frenzied honesty."
Sorry, you lost me right there.
Notable is that for all the criticism from others "in the know" (Rove, Perrino, et al), none has denied the accuracy of McClellan's assertions. Their remarks are limited to thinly disguised ad hominem attacks. McClellan admitting to lying and misleading as policy is nothing that anyone with half a brain didn't already know. It is, seemingly, a huge revelation to those with less than half a brain. Now, maybe there will be enough curiosity amongst those less-than-half-brained people to face the facts of this administration at its criminal, unconstitutional activities. But, probably not.
Kem Patrick just has a crush on Hillary, he'll get over it.
"MEANWHILE, liberals must do two things. Tame the Clintons"
I'll volunteer. I have had to remove many rattlesnakes where I live and work, so maybe I can be of help?
Kem Patrick, ...why would Democrats want a divisive neocon in drag, as Prez, VP, or dog catcher?
Kem Patrick, ...why won't Obama beat McCain?
McCain will win anyway unless Hillary is the prez nominee with Obama as her side kick. This McClellan book won't make any difference. Obama cannot beat McCain.
These Obama threads are fun huh?
Did the California Supreme Court hand it to McCain?
Scott McClellan's book is quite useful to the left. And who can blame him for writing it after he gave his best to his bosses and they said: "No, not good enough, we must replace you with a celebrity spinner from Fox News."
(I'm sorry Tony Snow is very ill, but the decision to replace McClellan with Snow was possibly the over-the-top decision of hubris there that will totally undo the Bushism "cache".) Remains to be seen.
MEANWHILE, liberals must do two things. Tame the Clintons.
Separate McCain from church votes because of Cindy's beer business. The election IS NOT yet in the bag for liberals.
You really underestimate the stupidity of the american public. Look at Clinton's campaign and how filthy and low brow it became and the moronic media worships McCain simply because he suffered in a war. If Obama overcomes the resistance of Hillary's gender and racial fanatics and the moronic media it will be a tremendous victory.
The latest Rasmussen poll states that most Americans think McCain will be better at handling the economy than Obama despite McCain's own admission that he knows next to nothing about economics. They also believe that McCain will lead America to "victory" while Obama just wants to bring the troops home. Apparently, the GOP propaganda myth about "victory" - as in a real war against a real country - rather than preventing deaths from IDEs in an occupation, is working really well. Dumb people voted for Bush and dumb people will vote for McCain no matter what the truth is. Propaganda works! The GOP does propaganda better.
It does not matter if Obama wins or Clinton wins or McCain win: they are all bought and paid for by corporate interests like Rupert Murdock. They win, and we loose. Once the sheeple realize this and start to WAKE UP, then maybe authentic transformation will happen on an order of magnitude that might actually impact climate change rather than sweep it under the rug via inimical strategies like the Bio fuel lobby and the Nuclear Lobby which all three candidates pay homage and are owned by.
curmudgeon99 - Of course no-one will care. These things happen all the time. Which most people figger, just goes to show ya, you gotta watch yer back, 'cause any one of your friends could suddenly, without warning, turn out to be a stinkin' liberal.
Nobody has still dared to call Scotty a liar!!!
Does anyone really think the American public will heed the waaaaay overdue tell-all? or even care?
The answer to the question posed in the title is "no."
Don't forget, the republicans still have that voting-machine strategy working for them.
jj
Ultimately, only a bunch of wing-nuts who believe that the will of God is more important than the technicalities of election laws, and who get to officially report vote totals for their jurisdictions, can hand victory to Obama.
I stole, then adapted to our time the following from FDR: "The only people that deserve "victory in Iraq" are the Iraqi people themselves." I will gladly pay a fine if this is plagiarism.
First you accuse me of racism, now you post that I wrote "Lying Shit" and you refuse to acknowledge that you do assume and insult others for no reason, other than they have a different opinion than you have. I also did not go bezerk. I never get angry with a computer screen. I replied to your unnecessary insults and told you off.
You have no or little sense of humor either, as noted that it angered you that I jokingly wrote, "Because he won't get enough votes".
Grow up and stop assuming that any white people who favor Hillary over Obama may be concerned about race or skin color. It is people such as you who promote racial tensions. That is just as damaging as the White Supremists and the KKK.
When assume is spelled ASS-ume, it is to signify that any who "assume", as you do and have done here with me and others, they are making an ASS of themselves. Rave on, I am done here.
I think Americans are to a point they would accept just about anyone else in the WH but Bush.
If something happens like 911 part 2 then MCCain wins with a diebold landslide. Iran if Bush has not attacked it before he leaves will be attacked 24 hours after the winner is announced.
VOTE PRO AMERICAN ONLY
"Iran if Bush has not attacked it before he leaves will be attacked 24 hours after the winner is announced."
Why?
Who's not "pro-American" according to you?
SiouxRose,
Funny, when McCain first clinched the repub nomination, I drew the same conclusion...he's a fall guy for the party since they know that we know they've blown it and don't want to risk having one of their ringers lose big time in November. But because of the past couple of months of mudslinging among the two dem candidates' teams and supporters, I fear, as I mentioned in a previous post, that McCain could end up in the white house. If the fall guy theory is correct, then with McCain as the actual winner, both parties lose!
Wonder6789 asked if Kem Patrick had a problem with Obama's color. I can't answer for him, but from reading his posts, I wouldn't think so. I think he's being opene-eyed (he can answer for himself, this is just my two-cents worth)as to the status of the average american level of consciousness which is not all that encouraging when it comes to electing representative leaders with enlightened vision. I live in east Tennessee where it is most obvious that there are a lot of people, and not just here, I assure you, that will vote for anybody other than Obama. This is unfortunate, but it is the cold fact. I'm not a complete pessimist...circumstances and our "better angels"--we all have them--can help the collective mind to expand as needed. I'm just a little leary of the power of political propaganda, especially when the gloves come off very soon.