Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Has 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 AllSiouxRose,
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.
"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?
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
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 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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did the California Supreme Court hand it to 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?
Kem Patrick, ...why won't Obama beat McCain?
Kem Patrick, ...why would Democrats want a divisive neocon in drag, as Prez, VP, or dog catcher?
"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 just has a crush on Hillary, he'll get over it.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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"
"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...
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.
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...
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).
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.
Don't bring her to my area ~Rebel~.
Anyway, she's the next prez. We'll have Bill back, _____ just like Showboat.
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.
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.
KEM, it seems Obama's skin color is a problem for you. Am I right?
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).
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.
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~.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.