Mar
2

Gulp




Posted at 20:01 by Brad

Is it too late for me to take back my Obama vote?

bluto.jpg
Above: My dream candidate.

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

I’ll be so depressed if he takes this “bipartisanship” nonsense seriously. Personally speaking, I’d like any Democratic candidate to spend their whole first day in office standing atop the White House roof dressed in pirate garb shouting “NOOOOOOOO PRISONERS!!!!!” at the top of their lungs. I want someone who will appoint Rudy Ray Moore as a Supreme Court justice, who will punish the Keyboard Kommandos by passing a Constitutional amendment banning Cheetos and Funyuns, and who will look into every Republican’s eyes and tell them that he drank their milkshake. HE DRANK IT UP!!!

As I’ve said before, there are more important issues facing this country than my bloody-minded quest for revenge. But even if Obama doesn’t plan on systematically destroying every Republican by using the Justice Department to slap them with bogus corruption charges, he could at the very least not appoint any to his cabinet. And while it’s true that Hagel and Lugar are some of the least objectionable Republicans out there, they are still Republicans. They bear the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored.

No prisoners, Hussein X. Please don’t disappoint me.

286 Comments »

  1. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:12

    Milkshakes for all! A pony in every blender!

  2. Invigilator said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:13

    Seriously though, Hagel and Lugar are about the best Republicans there are. WHY they are still Republicans, I don’t know.

  3. OTB said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:17

    I’m with you, Brad. This “non-partisan” crap is really sickening. Demonize, denouce, destroy…it’s the only language the right understands or respects. The more the dems kick them in their Orange #2-stained teeth, the more the right will love it. They view reason and compassion as hateful weaknesses, and to pretend otherwise is suicidal lunacy for any candidate.

  4. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:17

    Seriously though, Hagel and Lugar are about the best Republicans there are. WHY they are still Republicans, I don’t know.

    I believe they should be rewarded for their party loyalty with cushy positions.

  5. JakeInDK said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:18

    *cause they’re McCains – party line hacks who talk a good game of ‘ethics’.

    BTW we’re coming for YOU whitey!!!!

  6. Snowwy said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:26

    I believe they should be rewarded for their party loyalty with cushy positions.

    Prison librarian is cushy enough.

  7. John said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:26

    Hagel is as right-wing as it gets, except for Iraq, and Lugar isn’t much better. That’s why they are Republicans. Don’t kid yourselves about these two – look at their conservative vote ratings.

    I can’t understand how the Obama followers can ignore this sort of thing. How can they be so naive as to think this will make the Republicans play nicey-nice and go along with whatever the Democrats want? He’s caving in to Republicanism, and he hasn’t even been nominated yet!

    If Obama actually does this sort of thing, it’s possible he will accomplish so little that isn’t a Republican agenda item that he won’t even win the Democratic nomination in 2012 – he’ll be defeated on the grounds that if we wanted a Republican president, we’d have voted for one.

  8. JakeInDK said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:28

    I’d appoint Hagel as head of the SecDef. Let’s see him defend those ridiculous budget requests to people who can add and subtract! Like pouring salt on a snail…

  9. Jay said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:28

    Sounds like Edwards was your guy.

    He was my guy, too. An ass-kicking is what the repukes need.

  10. stryx said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:40

    Obama-Lieberman ’08 !!!!!!

    Tri-partisanship is the being the change!

  11. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:42

    Jay said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:28

    Sounds like Edwards was your guy.

    He was my guy, too. An ass-kicking is what the repukes need.

    Heck, Edwards was my guy, too. Now, onto this ass-kicking. Is there a chance anyone besides Obama can deliver it?

    I don’t like the idea of rethuglicans getting positions that they themselves never grant democrats when the positions are reversed. But we are looking at 5-8 rethuglicans being kicked out of the Senate if Obama wins convincingly in November.

    It’s worth the chance.

  12. Me said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:56

    If the worst he does is Hagel as Defense Secretary, I’d say that’s hardly worth not voting for him. SecDef is a conservative Republican job almost by definition.

    And look at it this way–it takes another Republican out of the Senate.

  13. Hoosier X said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:57

    Surely he means Hagel as, say, Secretary of Transportation, and Lugar as, say, last Secretary of Homeland Security before it is phased out.

    Who knows? Lugar might make a good head of FEMA.

  14. sxwarren said,

    March 2, 2008 at 20:59

    On the other hand, taking a couple three “moderate” Senate Repubs from states with Dem Governors might be kinda clever.

    Yes, Ms. Snowe, I’m lookin’ at you.

  15. Jennifer said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:00

    They bear the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored.

    I always thought that Derbyshire IS the ‘taint. Or at least the part of it closest to the asshole.

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Obama appointing any Republican. By the end of this campaign, after the 6 or 7 months of heavy TV saturation of ads portraying one after another variant on the theme “don’t vote for the n***er”, I don’t know that he will be able to stomach any of them who have not disassociated themselves from the Republican party.

  16. Legalize said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:02

    Senator Obama needs to watch this and then get back to us:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg5D-CqDoI8&feature=related

  17. Robert McClelland said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:13

    Republican control of Lieberman has driven many dems nuts. So imagine what Obama could do to the Republicans with two Liebermans.

  18. Jennifer said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:14

    Then there’s this damning indictment of Obama’s bipartisanship in the WaPo by David Ignatius, who worries that Obama is not nearly enough like Joe Lieberman.

  19. An Obama Presidency Likely To Include Republicans In High Places said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:21

    [...] Also (H/T to MemeOrandum): The Moderate Voice; Donklephant; Polimom Says; Sadly, No!; Open Left Tags: Politics, State Politics, National Politics, Think, Presidency 2008, President [...]

  20. Jody said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:22

    Ah, Senator Blutarsky. We need you more than ever.

  21. mikey said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:24

    First, I don’t believe he’ll really do it. Obama is positioning for the general election campaign, where he will be competing with McCain for the “moderate” and “independent” swing votes. Those people will find statements like this appealing, for while they are deeply dissatisfied with the bush/cheney policies, they are still more comfortable with a “conservative” message. And lets face it, before he can actually DO anything, Obama has to get elected. All campaign promises are not routinely kept.

    Second, when cross-party cabinet positions have been offered in the past, in most cases they are turned down. Nobody wants to be the voice that always gets overruled. It’s a difficult and unpleasant task to oversee an organization without having the power within the hierarchy to enforce your vision, direction and goals.

    I AM concerned that Obama will decided to just “let bygones be bygones” and will allow bush, cheney and their supporters to slink safely into retirement and sinecure, but if that’s the price to be paid to get America back and begin to address the worst of the carnage of the last eight years, so be it.

    *SIGH*

    mikey

  22. Galactic Dustbin said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:26

    Uhhh, you might want to re-think that, Blutarsky was a Republican when I reached the Senate.

  23. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:26

    I dunno, Brad. I’m not sure how much weight to put on the Times piece — the only quotes about cabinet picks from Obama himself are about choosing the best person for the job. The only quote about Hagel from Obama himself is the standard weasel-worded “good friend . . . respect” stuff you’d expect from a guy who has to respond to other people’s claims about what he’ll do. The only direct assertions regarding republicans and cabinet positions are coming from unnamed advisors and the author of the piece. The headline is rather hyperbolic, given the actual content in the story.

  24. cokane said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:28

    Sec Def is not a job where you need a partisan, especially since I doubt Obama would waver from his “wiser” foreign policy stance, which is the bedrock of his campaign. Really this isn’t all that objectionable… wingnuts hate Chuck Hagel (him being a RINO or whatever). And honestly, who knows if he’d even follow through with this stuff? It could just be politicking to convince independents and moderates to vote for him.

  25. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:29

    Dustbin, I had no idea you were in the Senate.

  26. PhysioProf said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:30

    Oh, for fuck’s sake!

    http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/hey-barack-fuck-you/

  27. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:32

    Shorter David Ignatius:

    Will Obama join together with the rest of us non-dirty-f*cking-hippy-centrists and cheer for dropping more bombs on the (non-Jewish) brown people of the Middle East?

    Only a sincere commitment to genocide against the Arabs demonstrates a strong commitment to Israel’s security.

    This is central to the Ignatius-Lieberman-Hiatt-Gerson-Krauthammer point.

    P.S. Hanx for spotting the wanker, Jennifer.
    ~

  28. Me said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:36

    I’m not sure of the gist of your “for fuck’s sake”, but I suspect that quote was taken somewhat out of context, given everything else I’ve heard him say on the subject. I believe his point is that if you wanna label such things as taking care of the troops and spending responsibly as either “liberal” or “conservative”, be his guest. Either way, he intends to do them.

  29. sxwarren said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:38

    I’m all for allowing all the Rethugs to slink away to Paraguay and, once they think they’re safely ensconced, suddenly “discovering” that Paraguay has nuclear missiles and is about to launch a strike on the US.

    Admittedly, this would be kinda tough on the Giant Armadillo and Chacoan Peccary populations.

  30. StonyPillow said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:39

    C’mon, folks. The (London) Sunday Times is a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper. Standard practice to spread FUD among your opponents.

  31. christian h. said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:40

    Obama, like McCain, is very good at making people think that, when he says something they don’t like, he’s lying (“he really doesn’t think that Lebanese and Palestinians should be murdered in large numbers, he just has to pretend“). Sorry to say this, but the rule of thumb – proved by experience over a long time – is that any Democrat moves to the right of his campaign positions once elected.

    Still, he’s the least bad candidate left in the race. And electing him in a landslide will at least be a symbolic victory.

  32. Hoosier X said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:40

    Off topic:

    We know Ben Stein is a shit, but just how much of a dishonest, straw-man-flinging, intellectual lightweight is he?

    He was at a business conference here in the Antelope Valley a few days ago.

    Article is here.

    Highlight is here:

    “We need to be united in gratitude of being Americans every moment of every day. This is the best place there’s ever been in the history of the world,” he said, drawing applause.

    American freedoms, he added, are the work of American military personnel.

    He said he often visits wounded soldiers at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center and also visits Arlington National Cemetery, whose graves include that of his father-in-law, a career Army officer who won Silver Stars for heroism during World War II and Vietnam.

    The wounded Walter Reed patients, many of them amputees, are “magnificent,” Stein said.

    “If you think America is finished, if you think America is in it decline, just spend a day with these people,” Stein said. “You will change your mind pretty damn quick.”

    Walter Reed amputees show how great America is.

    Support American greatness! More amputees!

  33. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:40

    Senator Obama needs to watch this and then get back to us:

    Legalize:

    Good one. He could watch this too…

    Of course this is how I feel about it personally.

    Revenge! Revenge!!!!1111!

  34. Susan of Texas said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:46

    I want a white house bent on revenge where everyone wears pirate costumes. Rove will walk the plank.

  35. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:46

    Presidents always cross the aisle to fill their cabinet out. Bill Clinton had a GOP Secretary of Defense (former Sen. William Cohen). Heck, even Dubya made Robert Matsui his Secretary of Transportation.

    You don’t want bipartisan hackery…especially on issues of war, peace, and the military-industrial complex? Don’t vote for “mainstream” members of the major parties.

    The only, and I mean only, thing that surprises me about this story is that so many people who should know better are surprised and disappointed.

  36. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:47

    Ohhh….

    Even better!!!

    REVENGE!!!!!

  37. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:47

    Fcuking spam filter.

    “For all his talk of bipartisanship, there’s little evidence that Barack Obama is capable of healing Washington.
    – By David Ignatius”

    ifthethunderdontgetya wrote:
    Shorter David Ignatius:

    Will Obama join together with the rest of us non-dirty-f*cking-hippy-centrists and cheer for dropping more bombs on the (non-Jewish) brown people of the Middle East?

    Only a sincere commitment to genocide against the Arabs demonstrates a strong commitment to Israel’s security.

    This is central to the Ignatius-Lieberman-Hiatt-Gerson-Krauthammer point.
    ~
    3/2/2008 2:30:04 PM

    Hanx for the Ignatius link, Jennifer.

  38. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:51

    Rove will walk the plank.

    Only if we can keelhaul Addington & Yoo.

  39. Susan of Texas said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:56

    Unfortunately, Cheney has other plans.

  40. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 21:57

    David Addington

    John Yoo

    Both are far more influential than their rather low profiles would suggest. This is apparently the Neocon MO.

  41. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:00

    From Susan’s link:

    (Cheney might go to Wolfram & Hart’s LA branch after 2009.)

    Wolfram & Hart’s L.A. branch has been one of the firm’s most trouble-plagued divisions. A gas leak in 2003 resulted in the deaths of most of the firm’s staff, while a new management team brought in the following year exited mere months later under controversial and still-mysterious circumstances, leaving considerable structural damage to the building in their wake.

    Sounds pretty serious….

  42. Jennifer said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:01

    You know, with all this talk of revenge and plank-walking, this is the part of the conversation where a comment like “the guillotine – an idea whose time has come – again” would fit right in, and given that it’s not being posted in comments on the website of a nervous Nellie Olson douchebag, probably would also not get you banned.

  43. MrWonderful said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:02

    And give twenty of the best to Gonzalez.

    And then grog all around, lads and lassies!

  44. Susan of Texas said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:06

    Sounds pretty serious….

    Just a demon resurrected to bring about the end of the world, a few fights, and some zombies.

    Quite a few zombies,actually.

  45. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:08

    Susan, thank you. I was sadly unaware of the TeeVeeCity Chronicle until this very moment.

    And a Nellie Olson reference, too. Y’all are conspiring to make my day.

  46. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:10

    Jennifer m8zt be banzed!

    We is piratz, not Les Misérables!

    (You ninjas out there can skulk for yerselves.)

  47. Susan of Texas said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:11

    And a Nellie Olson reference, too.

    Okay, that’s who Ann Althouse reminds me of.

  48. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:13

    The Guillotine, OK….

    I like the idea of Cheney OD’ing on whippits and having a brain aneurysm….

    Or, if Cheney is stuck in his office late, and decides to microwave a burrito for dinner, but neglects to take off the foil, and the microwaves reflect out at him and short out his pacemaker.

    What were you saying about demons & zombies, Susan?

  49. christian h. said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:14

    Jennifer, this is the 21st century! I think the firing squad is more appropriate.

  50. Kimberley Taylor said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:14

    I’m with OTB – Dems, Greens, Socialists, Whomever….need to kick the GOP in their pointy teeth (so pointy pointy).

    It’s time for stockades and inquisitions for those who would destroy our Constitution to satisfy their lusts. We’ve played patty cake long enough.

    Give’m the El Duce treatment!
    XXKHT

  51. Hattie said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:16

    Why are you surprised? He’s after that white guy vote. I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.

  52. Jennifer said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:17

    christian h – I dunno, there’s just something about the deterrent value of heads on spikes…

  53. ploeg said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:18

    Hagel probably isn’t going to give the Pentagon the good thorough cleaning that it so deperately needs, but he’s probably as good as we’re going to get in a first term.

    There’s no particular problem with having a Republican in the Cabinet. Just as long as that Republican gets appointed as special roving ambassador to the Seychelles the minute that the Republican starts veering from being a team player.

  54. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:18

    Or wait how about this one-

    Cheney is strangling a puppy to unwind, and the puppy pees while its dying, and the pee completes a circuit from the wall to Cheney’s foot, and electrocutes him.

  55. g said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:22

    A gas leak in 2003 resulted in the deaths of most of the firm’s staff,

    WTF????

    Oh, Hahahahah!:

    Wikipedia

    Wolfram & Hart, Attorneys at Law is a fictional international and interdimensional law firm in the television series Angel.

    Got me.

  56. Some Guy said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:25

    “Why are you surprised? He’s after that white guy vote. I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.”

    Wait, seriously? Appealing to different demographics “playing” the electorate? Trying to influence (guesstimation) 20% of the total population to vote for you = “The Sting”?

    Wow. You right wing trollers have really just stopped trying, haven’t you?

  57. Hattie said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:27

    I’m no right winger, sonny, just an old lady who has seen it all.
    Your belief that you can’t be manipulated is, well, touching.

  58. mikey said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:27

    I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.

    I’m sorry if I succumb to my inner asshole, but that’s beyond stupid.

    In no way has Obama “rooked” anybody. To even make the statement is to admit an overwhelming ignorance of politics. He is a charismatic politician. I don’t question that. He is also orders of magnitude better than bush/cheney, and the ONE player on the board who has a chance to make things qualitatively better for american citizens.

    I’m sorry he’s not perfect. But the chasm between “not perfect” and “GW Bush” is light years across. While you people grandly discuss the downsides of the Democratic candidates, and sure, they have ‘em, it’s as if you completely disregard the horrendous damage that’s been done to America under bush/cheney.

    It may be long past recovering. Perhaps Obama will fail. But I can promise you this. Under McCain, America as a concept, as an ideal, as anything short of a military dictatorship will perish. So go ahead. Pick your poison.

    I’m old. I’m not gonna be here for long. And I can take care of myself no matter how bad it gets. You folks with families? Futures? Plans, hopes and dreams? You better start getting serious about what the playing field is going to look like in 2015, 2020.

    Take a hard look at what we’ve become, and where we’re going. Now decide if it’s truly time to hold out for Mr. Perfect…

    mikey

  59. Susan of Texas said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:28

    Wolfram and Hart

    The Beast and she who brings the apocalypse

  60. Ira Allen said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:32

    Hillary Clinton has experience at fighting and defeating Republicans. Barack Obama is beyond naive.

    If you want someone who will stand up for your values, than Clinton is your choice.

    If you want someone who will sell you out and coddle the radical Christian fringe and the corporate establishment, then Barack Obama is your choice.

    Obama opposes universal health care, favors social security privatization, and favors preemptive war with Pakistan.

    Hillary Clinton is the only true progressive left in this race.

  61. mikey said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:32

    I’m no right winger, sonny, just an old lady who has seen it all.
    Your belief that you can’t be manipulated is, well, touching.

    See, Hattie, this is where you completely lose me. I’m blind and being manipulated, but you can see right through all that. Poor, pathetic, pitiful helpless me. Since you seem to believe you’re the only one who can see clearly while the rest of us stupid sheep are helplessly led around by our nose, perhaps you could enlighten us on some other areas where your wisdom and perception are so much superior to ours.

    Shiiit…

    mikey

  62. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:35

    OK, one final idea,

    John Yoo accidentally eats a can of Mad-Cow-infected Hormel beanless chili.

    In his finaly days of madness, he drafts a constitutional opinion that according to the Unitary Executive Theory, PBS will create a George W. Bush muppet called “Georgie Bushie”, who will be featured on Sesame Street in perpetuity.

    Then he dies on the toilet.

  63. g said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:36

    I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.

    right, Hattie. Cause all the other politicians running for office are completely, 100% sincere.

  64. TB said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:36

    If I was president, the first thing I would do on inauguration day would be to make sure that every last one of these twisted little thieves were in custody before sunrise the following morning.

    By the end of the week, they’d either be in Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks, or in The Hague being sentenced to life without parole in Spandau.

    Yes, I know, Spandau was torn down, but I figure as part of their “rehabilitation” they could live in tents why they rebuilding it themselves, brick by brick.

  65. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:39

    Ira Allen said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:32

    Hillary Clinton has experience at fighting and defeating Republicans. Barack Obama is beyond naive.

    So that’s why she’s winning the primary. It’s all clear to me now.

    And now for something completely different.

  66. Dean Booth said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:41

    I once shot a Republican in my pajamas. Why he’s a Republican, I’ll never know.

  67. Lesley said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:45

    what mikey said. He’s being strategic.

  68. kenga said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:46

    Hillary Clinton has experience at fighting and defeating Republicans. Barack Obama is beyond naive.

    Yup. And that’s why he’s going to send Chuck Hagel out in front of the press, to take Grover Norquist to the woodshed over the debate to raise taxes to fund public infrastructure projects. And Richard Lugar on the teevee with Timmeh to talk non-proliferation and in the process do him up like a wall-eyed kitten chasing a laser pointer.

    I’m skeptical that appointments such as Lugar and Hagel will play out (well, Obama did work closely with Lugar in designing and passing some pretty serious nnon-proliferation legislation), but I can believe it’s been considered and I think it’s a pretty fucking good idea.

    imagine, if you will:
    Grover: “But, but, but tax and spend, prosperity – liberals!!!”
    Obama: “You’re whining again. Your self-centered far right philosophy will run aground on the shoals of patriotic bipartisanship embodied in this administration. Neener neener.”

  69. Susan of Texas said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:48

    Put a Republican face on anything they messed up. Make Sen. Whoever (R. Screwed the Pooch) tell the public what they did.

  70. Lesley said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:49

    John Yoo accidentally eats a can of Mad-Cow-infected Hormel beanless chili.

    In lieu of infected beanless product, Lou-Gherig’s disease would be an appropriate slow demise, with no accelerated morphine drip.

  71. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:51

    Actually, I think the plan is for Lugar and Hagel to job-share an insignificant cabinet post – probably agriculture, since they’re both from corn states.

    That way, each can also be available for childcare duties at home.

  72. Some Guy said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:52

    See, that’s what makes this so funny to me. I really don’t care either way between Obama or Clinton. I lean towards Obama, because Clinton would be the easiest for the Republicans to regroup, galvanize, and counter-attack against; also that retarded 3am ad lost her some points with me. But really? Meh.

    I’m reasonably certain that “Gary” and “Ida” are the same griefer, as they share the same writing styles, down to the bullet point lists of asinine Talking Points of Idiot.

    Hattie is clearly also fake, since no one actually uses the term “sonny”, as this is not a bad newspaper comic strip, placed circa 1938. Though I care less, because I’ve never seen this one before.

    Really, I’m just a sucker for train-wreck bad logic or historical inaccuracies, especially if they’re based off of a half-paragraph in a middle school text book, with a pinch of imagination and assumption. They make me giddy.

  73. sxwarren said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:54

    Perhaps while they’re rebuilding Spandau, they could form a classical dance troupe.

  74. stryx said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:55

    I like the rock-breaking idea, but I think it would be more effective if they had to wear shiny black corsets. And absurdly high heels. And fuzzy hot pink thongs.

    Definitely.

  75. Jennifer said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:57

    Seriously folks, we need to tone down the extremism on this thread.

    Otherwise Doug Watts will be forced to trot over here and lecture us about manners and civility.

  76. Hattie said,

    March 2, 2008 at 22:59

    Go ahead and put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, of course. but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?

  77. Batocchio said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:03

    It’s traditional to appoint someone of the other party to a token cabinet position. Then there was Gingrich, insisting Clinton appoint a Republican Secretary of Defense, as if Republicans would ever do the reverse… not that Clinton’s pick was that bad, but still.

  78. Satan said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:04

    How about the Office of Apologizing to the World?

  79. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:04

    This is central to my point.

  80. norbizness said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:05

    The only direct quote in that article is ““Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much.” The second part of the article is “Bill may tell Hillary to quit on Tuesday,” also with no quoted evidence.

    The fucking Times of London, people.

  81. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:10

    The fucking Times of London, people.

    What punishment is sufficient to meet the crimes of Rupert Murdoch?

  82. StonyPillow said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:11

    TB, the traditional penalty for a treason conviction is hanging. I understand it’s also traditional not to tie together the legs of the condemned, giving rise to the phrase “traitor’s dance”.

  83. Matt T. said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:12

    Go ahead and put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, of course. but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?

    Again with this “oh, you Obamaniacs and your cult worship” nonsense. It’s this years “hippy Deaniacs” meme from the group of people who apparently got nothing better to do with their lives than out-cynic everyone around them. Do y’all have a point beyond “Neener neener, your favoritest hero is not actually perfect, pwned”?

    Bah. It’s probably all Ralph Nader’s fault.

  84. Jonah said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:14

    Is anyone else loving the under-the-radar appearance of “I drank your milkshake!” among blogs, Internet, etc, as the latest entry in the pop culture lexicon? I think I will never get tired of that phrase, and it will have more lasting power than “Show me the money!”

  85. Satan said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:15

    The fucking Times of London, people.

    Papers can lie? You mean–this isn’t true?!?!

  86. Matt T. said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:18

    Is anyone else loving the under-the-radar appearance of “I drank your milkshake!” among blogs, Internet, etc, as the latest entry in the pop culture lexicon?

    First I’ve seen it, actually. Does it have anything to do with milkshakes being brought to the yard? ‘Cause, if I understand properly, that’s a big deal, milkshakes being brought to the yard or making people come to the yard or what have you. Do you drink the milkshake after coming to the yard? I’m so confused.

  87. atheist said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:18

    Lou-Gherig’s disease would be an appropriate slow demise, with no accelerated morphine drip.

    Good Point.

  88. Hattie said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:19

    OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize. I mean, why do you think it’s wrong to point that out? Can he win without you?
    And in answer to a post upstream: Like most elder women (and men) I’m plenty concerned about the future, not just my own future but that of my kids and grandkids.
    First and foremost in my mind is getting out of Iraq.

  89. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:20

    Satan said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:15

    The fucking Times of London, people.

    Papers can lie? You mean–this isn’t true?!?!

    Papers CAN lie, Satan. See NYT, WaPo, War in Irackeystan. But as to your specific example: It’s totally fucking true.

    Batboy is out of control.

  90. otherlisa said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:51

    I don’t know how many times as of late I’ve read some variation on this notion: “Don’t listen to what Obama says/does, he doesn’t really mean it, it’s a clever stratagem to get elected, and once he’s in the White House, his true progressive colors will emerge!”

    The problem is, there isn’t nearly enough of a record to actually tell us much one way or another.

    Why progressives flocked to this guy, I will never understand.

  91. Jennifer said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:54

    otherlisa – they flocked to him precisely because there isn’t enough of a record to prove one way or the other.

    As oppossed to Clinton, whose triangulating centrism is well known.

    There’s at least the chance that Obama will govern further to the left. With Clinton, it’s a known commodity of accomodationist centrism even when it’s not absolutely required.

  92. otherlisa said,

    March 2, 2008 at 23:58

    Jennifer, I’d feel more comfortable with that theory if not for Obama’s professed positions in this campaign being to the right of Clinton’s. On trade, on economic policy, on health care, and on the environment (his platform has changed to reflect a more sound “green” position but it originally included corn-based ethanol and liquid coal without any of the hedges about these technologies having to be carbon neutral).

    Add in the accomodationist rhetoric and co-opting of Republican talking points, and I just feel like we’re all being taken for a ride on the Magical Unity Pony (to borrow from Balloon Juice).

    I was supporting Edwards originally, just to tell you where I’m coming from. Switched to Clinton after a lot of study and hesitation. When it comes right down to it, I trust the Wonk over the Preacher.

  93. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:08

    Jennifer, I’d feel more comfortable with that theory if not for Obama’s professed positions in this campaign being to the right of Clinton’s. On trade, on economic policy, on health care, and on the environment…

    I noticed you skipped Obama’s position on “bombing the shit outta the Ay-rabs”, otherlisa.

    Could compare and contrast your opinions of Obama and Hillary on this issue?

  94. atheist said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:11

    When it comes right down to it, I trust the Wonk over the Preacher.

    Sure, makes sense. Some smart people voted for Clinton for exactly this reason. Others, like me, thought Obama sounded marginally better than Clinton.

    Soon we’ll know which one is the Democratic candidate… why fret about it now?

  95. otherlisa said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:21

    Thunderdog (if I might abbreviate), I don’t see much different there, especially with Obama’s ratcheting up the rhetoric as of late (Pakistan, Europe needs to do more in Afghanistan, etc.). Where I worry is the inexperience and the seeming lack of interest in the nuts and bolts of policy and government (no meetings of the Senate subcommittee he chaired, for example).

    Atheist, yeah. Not a lot to be done at this point except to let the process play out and see what happens.

    I’m a Democrat, and I’ll support the nominee.

  96. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:22

    OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize. I mean, why do you think it’s wrong to point that out?

    Hattie, nobody said he wasn’t. Neither did anyone say you were wrong for pointing it out. Some Guy simply pointed out (with a fair degree of snark) that of course he’s angling for votes from as many demographic groups as possible, and that doing so doesn’t equate to “playing” anyone. It equates to “getting enough votes to win.”

    As for all the references to swooning or losing one’s head or whatever over Obama . . .jeez. There’s not a lot of doe-eyed worship going on in this thread. The original post here is, you may have noticed, quite critical of the guy. The closest thing I’m seeing here to what you’re seeing is a lot of leftish types closing ranks around the guy who looks likely to be the nominee of the only party that stands a chance of both a) doing a significantly better job of running the country than the republicans and b) actually beating the republican nominee in November.

    For the record: I haven’t swooned over anyone since I met my spouse a couple of decades ago. I was originally an Edwards supporter. When he bailed, I came to favor Obama. If Clinton gets the nomination (which is unlikely but possible) I will absolutely vote for her. I don’t think I’m alone in any of this (well, except maybe for that swooning thing back in the ’80s. Good times, good times.)

  97. otherlisa said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:24

    I have to say, this thread (and I’m guessing this site in general) is a rare island of snarky rationality in the perfect primary storm.

    Just don’t go to Kos. It’s scary there.

  98. LittlePig said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:25

    Yep. The choice is between two triangulators. I think Obama is marginally more likely to ramp down Georgie’s Excellent Mesopotamian Adventure, so that’s who I voted for, but as far as “true progressive”, please. Centrist peas in a pod.

  99. We Love America More Than Anyone. » take no prisoners. said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:34

    [...] on obama: I’ll be so depressed if he takes this “bipartisanship” nonsense seriously. Personally speaking, I’d like any Democratic candidate to spend their whole first day in office standing atop the White House roof dressed in pirate garb shouting “NOOOOOOOO PRISONERS!!!!!” at the top of their lungs. I want someone who will appoint Rudy Ray Moore as a Supreme Court justice, who will punish the Keyboard Kommandos by passing a Constitutional amendment banning Cheetos and Funyuns, and who will look into every Republican’s eyes and tell them that he drank their milkshake. HE DRANK IT UP!!! [...]

  100. Joe Max said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:35

    Is anyone else loving the under-the-radar appearance of “I drank your milkshake!” among blogs, Internet, etc, as the latest entry in the pop culture lexicon? I think I will never get tired of that phrase, and it will have more lasting power than “Show me the money!”

    A young friend of mine used a good one-liner of that style that seems to be gaining use in California:

    “Gimme your lunch money!” (sometimes followed with “Now!”)

  101. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:45

    “…flocking to…”

    “…cult of Obama…”

    “…wonk over the preacher…”

    Sheesh. It’s a game that tastes a lot like a Rove sammich. I guess I should accept that Rovian politics will be part and parcel to the way the game is played forever. I just wish it didn’t need to be so.

    Lookit. There are exactly three people in the whole goddam world that have a chance to be president of the united states. You can pick one, or you can sit it out. That’s all. It’s not hard, and the one you DON’T pick doesn’t have to be a criminal, a charlatan or a demon. Just the one you didn’t pick.

    McCain is bush/cheney with anger issues.

    Clinton is logarithmically better, but her corporatist and authoritarian streaks put me off. She’d be a million million times better than what we’ve got today, but she’s locked into the system.

    You can play around with the “experience” thing, like there is any such thing as being experientially prepared for that office, but that’s horsecrap. A president makes decisions based upon his/her ideology and pragmatic considerations. As far as having the experience for the job, hell, I’m as ready or not as any of them.

    I believe Obama will make decisions without concerning himself so much with the status quo, what Greenwald calls the “Beltway Elite”, and therefore will act more often with the best interests of the people and the country in mind. If that somehow makes me a pollyanna sucker flocking to a cult, fine, tell Karl I said hi, but there’s only three choices and you gotta pick either one or none…

    mikey

  102. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:47

    I think Obama should make Jonah Goldberg Secretary of State, and this is central to my point.

  103. gbear said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:47

    I once shot a Republican in my pajamas.

    How did a Republican get into your pajamas?

  104. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:47

    No prisoners, Hussein X. Please don’t disappoint me.

    At first I thought this was addressed to Hoosier X and I was confused. Then when I, y’know, actually read it right, all I could think of was Dianne Weist’s great line in Parenthood (paraphrased): “They say they love you, sweetie. Then they come.”

  105. atheist said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:49

    How did a Republican get into your pajamas?

    I once shot an Elephant in a Church… how I got into a Church I’ll never know.

  106. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:53

    but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?

    Perfectly fine, lady. It would also be way OK if you’d stop with the concern-trolling.

  107. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:56

    OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize.

    god, this is the kind of provocative thing that good concern trolls do. The heavy-handed sarcams.

    Yes, you dumbshit, he is angling for the white male vote. Just like he’s angling for all the votes he can get. Just like all the other candidates are.

    What the fuck is with you that you think it’s somehow unethical for a candidate for political office to be….you know…trying to appeal to voters?

    buzz off, you old bag. And I speak as someone who shares your demographic.

  108. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:57

    Yeah, g. I coulda said it that pithily, but I’m verbose. *sigh*

  109. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:00

    Holy. Fucking. Shit.

    This asshole (and if he’s going to do what I think he is, yes, he’s an asshole) is going to open his administration with some fucked-up version of “Our long national nightmare is over…….let’s put the past behind us and look forward”.

    That will blow a dozen horse cocks. The only way that we (as a country) can save ourselves from complete, catastrophic failure is if we bring these monsters to justice. Bush and Cheney need to be handed over to the Hague for war crime trials (at the very least!!) and the Justice Department will need to be cleansed of the Regent University scum that it’s been packed with (let’s start by making every “degree” granted by those frauds INVALID). The Defense Department has to be cleared of the roosts that provided for comfortable livings for the neocons that lodged there in the Clinton years. All of this will need to be done over the howls of the GOP and the screams of the media that’s in their pocket, without worrying about whether Rush Limbaugh will approve or not.

    Fuck it all. I can only hope that Hillary wins the next round and stays viable (lest this “Can’t we all just get along?” meme become part of the Democratic side of the campaign). I’ve HAD IT with Vichy Dems, I won’t go out of my way to elect one President so that we can *continue* having the living shit kicked out of us by a tiny minority of extreme Right-wing sociopaths!

    ***

  110. Ira Allen said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:08

    Through February 19th, Hillary Clinton has won more votes from Democratic voters than Obama.

    Hillary will not be bullied out of this race, especially not while she has more support from real Democrats than Obama.

  111. Hattie said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:09

    g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 0:56

    OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize.

    god, this is the kind of provocative thing that good concern trolls do. The heavy-handed sarcams.

    Yes, you dumbshit, he is angling for the white male vote. Just like he’s angling for all the votes he can get. Just like all the other candidates are.

    What the fuck is with you that you think it’s somehow unethical for a candidate for political office to be….you know…trying to appeal to voters?

    buzz off, you old bag. And I speak as someone who shares your demographic.

    Now, now. Nurse Ratchitt will bring you your meds and calm you down.

  112. Hattie said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:11

    Twit.

  113. pgl said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:12

    The anger we have with the GOP leadership is largely in part because the spolied little brats of the Republican Party have highjacked their party. Hagel and Lugar are two of the few grownups with household names. IMHO (as expressed over at Angrybear), Obama is doing the right thing. Heck – he’ll need a cabinet of merits to undo the damage done by 8 years of Bush-Cheney. Let’s also remember – Cabinet members work for the President, not the other way around. President Obama will be setting the agenda – not Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

  114. Arky "I just get these headaches" The Blasphemer said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:14

    I heard Sadly, No! is thinking of appointing new bloggers such as Johan LœdedHösen and KLoaded to its stable.

  115. pgl said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:15

    “Bush and Cheney need to be handed over to the Hague for war crime trials (at the very least!!) and the Justice Department will need to be cleansed”.

    Now I agree with this 100%. Let’s put a real prosecutor in the office of Attorney General. Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald – even if he is registered as a Republican. Let Fitz nail these criminals that now work in the White House. Look – I think Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time.

  116. Ira Allen said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:17

    Funny thing about Patrick Fitzgerald

    He’s going to lose his job if Obama is elected, because Fitzgerald’s big cases now include the Rezko case and the Daley cases.

  117. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:23

    Ira Allen is living proof that while all Republicans are wankers, not all wankers are Republicans.

    Freakin idiot…

    mikey

  118. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:23

    It’s Ratched, Hattie. Not Ratchitt. Which sounds like rat shit. Which is what Ira Allen keeps ingesting and then regurgitating. Go away, Ira.

  119. TB said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:29

    fthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    [ ... ]

    What punishment is sufficient to meet the crimes of Rupert Murdoch?

    I would say that there is precedent for prosecuting Murdoch they same way that Julius Streicher was prosecuted. Murdoch is, after all, a US citizen.

    StonyPillow said,

    TB, the traditional penalty for a treason conviction is hanging. I understand it’s also traditional not to tie together the legs of the condemned, giving rise to the phrase “traitor’s dance”.

    Naturally … I would say that some, Karl Rover for instance, could be convicted for treason.

    And as far as that goes, I say hang him, hang him from the highest yardarm of the USS Constitution anchored in Boston Harbor, and leave his carcass there to rot.

    Put a brass plaque on the deck under that spot that reads “Ever Thus to Traitors”.

  120. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:29

    while all Republicans are wankers

    Just because I feel like stirring the pot here . . . yesterday I spent a fair amount of time over at Nancy Nall’s blog. She’s the former reporter who broke the Goeglein plagiarism thing that exploded on Friday, and the thread that spilled the beans on old Ted got pretty long. I read the whole thing, and I’ll tell ya, one of the things that impressed me was that if you ignored several of the frothing-at-the-mouth drive-bys from people who’d never heard of her before this week, the dialogue was principled, respectful, thoughtful, and on target. And it was playing out among people of a variety of political leanings, including those who call themselves conservatives. I was heartened by the number of them who espoused traditional conservative principles (fiscal restraint, for example) but expressed absolute disdain for Bushco and all its coattails. Of course, several said they’re pulling the D lever this time around, so they’re not, y’know, those republicans. But still. It was sort of hopeful.

  121. atheist said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:35

    I believe Obama will make decisions without concerning himself so much with the status quo, what Greenwald calls the “Beltway Elite”, and therefore will act more often with the best interests of the people and the country in mind. If that somehow makes me a pollyanna sucker flocking to a cult, fine, tell Karl I said hi, but there’s only three choices and you gotta pick either one or none…

    Totally, Mikey.

    One other thing we progressives need to remember- every single one of the three people who might end up president in 2009 are somewhat separated from our POV. None of them is that great. I think Obama is the best, but we’ll see.

    Many of us are political activists of some kind, in relation to some issue or set of issues. Therefore, now is the time for us to read all we can about how Obama, Clinton, and McCain relate to our chosen issues. Rather than focus on the candidates themselves, since none of them will do the right thing without a lot of work on our part, we need to focus on what the situation is with our issue, and how that situation is likely to change in the event of any of the three front-runners winning.

    In other words, since we are not in control of the election, we should focus more on the issues that we find important, and less on fighting over one candidate versus another. Not only do we have a better chance of effecting positive change if we focus pushing forward our own goals, but none of the candidates will really do what we need them to- unless we work on them a lot.

    So, what we need is to decide what our main issues are- mine, for instance, is trying to prevent a war between the USA and Iran- and how to further them. We need to realize that McCain, Clinton, or Obama could become the next president, and so we need to make contingency plans in the event of any one of them winning the Presidency this year.

    So if I am most focussed on keeping the USA and Iran out of a war, then I need to focus on that more than I focus on trying to make one candidate win (my ability to effect the election is limited at best). And, I need to plan out how I will act in the event of an Obama win, a Clinton win, and a McCain win- don’t forget that. Either one of the three could happen. And I think we should include the possiblity of Obama winning but being assassinted, too. After we do that, though, we need to stop worrying about who will win the presidentcy so much, and focus more on our #1 issue or issues.

    That’s my take, anyhow, for how to be effective, but not drive ourselves nuts at the same time.

  122. Hattie said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:40

    What a love fest.
    Twerps.

  123. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:41

    Now, now. Nurse Ratchitt will bring you your meds and calm you down.

    Funny, hattie, I was just going to say that to your cohort, Element 5, who’s getting just a little bit frothy.

    You’re another kind of troll. I always marvel at people like you who come to a board they’ve never been to before and proceed to lecture the other posters for their inability to be as morally upright as you.

    Is the sour bitter sense of self-righteousness you get really worth it to you?

    I’m curious how you’re going to play this one out – are you going to ramp up the flaming, and hang around all night? that’s always amusing, but it can be a thread killer. or are you going to tell us how awful this board is, how intolerant we are, and write a half a dozen posts telling us you’ll never come back here again before you actually kiss off?

  124. akatsuki said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:46

    So apparently you just ignored his indications he would reach across the aisle? You thought it was BS? Obama wants to get stuff done, lots of stuff done. He isn’t interested in revenge, and if he does take revenge it will kill his momentum because America mostly just wants to move on, right or wrong. Yes, we are talking almost an amnesty over the past couple of years, because it would take up his entire presidency to try and get revenge, and nothing progressive would be accomplished.

    I want universal health care, international relations, and an improved education system. I don’t care about revenge, not when we finally have the chance to get these things. And you just want to throw it all away by tying up the entire system in hearings for the next 8-10 years. This is our chance at a progressive agenda, at taking the slander off the word “liberal”, to take back red states and confine the republicans to be the marginal party they deserve to be. Thing long term subversion versus short term vendetta.

  125. gbear said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:49

    I was hoping that Obama would be absolutely everything that I want and need in a president, but it’s starting to look like he might not be. Therefore, I am going to fill my heart with extreme bitterness and make sure than no one of any party ever again steps on my lawn.

  126. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:50

    Maybe she’ll do both, g. I’ve seen it before.

    Anyway, on to Ira, who’s a class-A douche. From Ira’s link, which he seems to think proves that Clinton has won more votes from Democrats than Obama has:

    The largest gap is between Democrats, where Clinton narrowly leads, and non-Democrats, where Obama holds a substantial, 21% advantage. Some Clinton supporters are crowing about how the numbers among Democrats cancel out the “popular will” argument, and give superdelegates the right to over-ride the will the interlopers in the process. However, there is a major flaw in that argument: most of the voters who did not self-identify as Democrats are actually registered to vote as Democrats. For example, the roughly 225,000 New York voters who did not self-identify as Democrats are all registered as Democrats. Every single “closed” primary state, where only registered Democrats are allowed to vote, produced a substantial number of non-self-identified Democrats. These percentages of the electorate in closed primary states varied between 13% and 35% of the overall electorate, and Obama always did better among this group. In other words, Obama is almost certainly winning voters who are registered as Democrats, just not those who self-identify as Democrats. At worst, Obama is in a virtual tie among the former group.

    Kinda disproves your “argument” by using your own evidence, dunnit?

  127. gbear said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:52

    And that goes for their kids and dogs too. I hate them all for what Obama’s done to me.

  128. Hattie said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:55

    Oh I’ve posted plenty here. This thread is not your property, much less the Democratic Party or even the Obama campaign.

  129. a different brad said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:56

    Y’know, I’ve been rabidly anti-republican more or less since I developed a political awareness many years past, but this potential move doesn’t upset me.
    For one, Obama is positioning himself here, especially for Texas. He’s telling Reagan Dems that they’ll be able to live with him
    And he’s supporting the closest thing to sane Republicans we have, which has two benefits. One, it potentially creates a divide in Repubs between the kool-aid drinking true believers and the actual majority of the party who are merely misguided but occasionally rational, tho with McCain’s (undeserved) rep as a RINO that’s going to be a smaller effect.
    And, second, it reinforces the position of those moderates after Obama wins, forcing the rest of the party to go through them to get anything done.
    There is such a thing as a respectable Republican, and frankly, we’re almost as well served by strengthening their hand as we are by getting someone resembling a progressive in office.
    Also, like black people standing behind a Repub candidate, a RINO in a small, mostly meaningless cabinet position would give cover against cries of persecution as the ones who deserve it are lined up and summarily executed.
    Revenge is a dish best served cold. Patience, bradrocket. Someone with a clue is almost in office. Give him a chance.
    (Does this mean I’m a cult member, then?)

  130. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:58

    Well said, akatsuki. I mean, I get the desire for revenge, I really do. But I kinda thought the point of getting a decent president into office was so he or she could start overseeing a good and just and helpful government. That’s a pretty big job. And with just 24 hours in a day, etc. etc., it seems like the revenge thing (if done to the specifications outlined here) would take up most of the time a prez might otherwise spend, oh, I dunno, restoring habeas corpus and civil rights in general, looking out for the welfare of the people . . . that sort of thing.

  131. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:59

    I wish people would stop reaching across the aisle. They trip me up, and then there’s coke and popcorn everywhere.

  132. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:00

    Oh I’ve posted plenty here. This thread is not your property,

    all right, darling. Be my guest. Show us your all. Is “twerp” a sample of your intellectural discourse?

  133. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:06

    Barack Obama is the new Bill Clinton: a highly intelligent person whose sole overriding goal in life is to become President of the United States. In and of itself this isn’t either a good thing or a bad thing, but let’s face it: nobody has a clue what he would do if he were elected.

    I happen to think that John McCain will beat him like a rented mule if the two of them match up, and that’s a major disaster for America (in my opinion, McCain is GeeDubyuh with lots of added PTSD). I don’t know what the answer to that is, though. Guess, as usual, we’re pretty much fucked,

  134. a different brad said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:10

    Wow, lots of concern trolls and misguided souls here tonight, eh?
    Lakeesha- mark your Hillary talking point emails as spam and you’ll suddenly see Obama in a whole new light; reality.
    Ira/saul/kev – Yep, Fitz is gone with the new Admin. Cuz they replace all the folks in his position when a new Admin comes in. Either you weren’t payin much attention, or you were hopin the rest of us weren’t.
    Now hurry up and reduce yourself to racism so it’s proper to pielist you.
    Hattie- are you Ilyka’s Mom, by any chance?

  135. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:12

    a different brad,

    no, my problem is I’m not a Dem – I don’t support Hillary either. I have no great confidence that she could beat McCain.

  136. gbear said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:12

    I happen to think that John McCain will beat him like a rented mule if the two of them match up

    That’s a good visual image of the level at which the republican party will come after Obama, but I think the mule just might wind up owning all the property in the county before November.

  137. kenga said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:13

    He isn’t interested in revenge, and if he does take revenge it will kill his momentum because America mostly just wants to move on, right or wrong.

    I think you’re right. Although, I’d add that having prominent Republicans in his administration will help keep the housecleaning mentioned just above by diff brad and mortician from being easily characterized as “revenge”.
    To my mind, that is going to be critical to actually accomplishing the things many of us would like to see the next POTUS bring about.

  138. conumbdrum said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:13

    Um… fact is, Obama and Lugar have worked together on legislation several times, with good results. Here’s an example (courtesy of Obsidian Wings):

    ********

    Here Obama has teamed up with Richard Lugar (R-IN). How did this happen? Here’s the Washington Monthly:

    By most accounts, Obama and Lugar’s working relationship began with nukes. On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as “nonproliferation” is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as “exchange-rate policy” or “export-import bank oversight.”

    The way to a wonk’s heart: campaign on securing Russian loose nukes. — In any case, in addition to working on nuclear non-proliferation, Obama and Lugar co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms. From an op-ed Obama and Lugar wrote on their legislation:

    “These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That’s why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

    Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.

    One part of our initiative would strengthen and energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight antiaircraft missiles and other conventional weapons, a program that has for years been woefully underfunded. There may be as many as 750,000 missiles, known formally as man-portable air defense systems, in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. Three years ago terrorists fired missiles at — and missed — a jetliner full of Israeli tourists taking off from Mombasa, Kenya. In 2003 a civilian cargo plane taking off from Baghdad was struck but landed safely.

    Loose stocks of small arms and other weapons also help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and, as we have seen repeatedly, provide ammunition for those who attack peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize and rebuild war-torn societies. The Lugar-Obama measure would also seek to get rid of artillery shells like those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly to U.S. forces in Iraq.

    Some foreign governments have already sought U.S. help in eliminating their stocks of lightweight antiaircraft missiles and millions of tons of excess weapons and ammunition. But low budgets and insufficient leadership have hampered destruction. Our legislation would require the administration to develop a response commensurate with the threat, consolidating scattered programs at the State Department into a single Office of Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction. It also calls for a fivefold increase in spending in this area, to $25 million — a relatively modest sum that would offer large benefits to U.S. security.

    The other part of the legislation would strengthen the ability of America’s friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction or material that could be used in a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. Stopping weapons of mass destruction in transit is an important complement to our first line of defense, the Nunn-Lugar program, which aims to eliminate weapons of mass destruction at their source.”

    Dealing with unsecured stocks of shoulder-fired missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons, stocks that might fall into anyone’s hands, be sold on the black market, and end up being used against our troops or our citizens, or fueling civil wars that tear countries apart — it seems to me that this is an excellent thing to spend one’s time on.

    *******

    One more point: it’s assholes like Rush Limbaugh who rumble that any Republican who works with a Democrat on ANYTHING needs to be “punished.” Let’s not lower ourselves to his level. If Obama can appoint Republicans to cabinet positions and get good results like the legislation above… well that’s only more evidence that Democrats are far more suited to govern than Repubs.

  139. Jennifer said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:14

    The hyper-partisans just can’t resist showing up and flinging poo, can they?

    As someone upthread said, I think pretty much everyone here is on board with voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. At this point, all any of you frothers are accomplishing is supplying ammo to the Republicans. I’ve already voted in the primary and probably so have at least half of the other people here. We find your bullshit utterly boring.

  140. cokane said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:20

    I think some of you are being awfully narrow minded in this discussion. As someone in Ohio, I’m going to vote for Obama. And I’m not voting to make a president who will act out my sadistic fantasies. Clinton is not a true progressive imo. Her husband brought us NAFTA and neoconservatism. And while there were some good things (balanced budget, SCHIP) the “experience” I’ve had with Clinton presidencies has left a bad taste in my mouth. Furthermore, a Clinton/McCain campaign will be another presidential race where Vietnam is one of the top issues and I’m so damn sick of that…

    In my opinion Obama is like teflon. None of the smears will really stick to him, and he won’t get angry or unlikeable in public. The attacks on him will see mean and crude and the American people are ready for a new kind of campaign. With him as the candidate the Republicans will implode on the campaign trail and expose themselves as the racists and bigots that they are. Sure the “Muslim” and black smears will work on the true believers, but their votes were never up for grabs.

    An Obama campaign will cause Democrats to win more Senate and House seats than a Clinton campaign would. And being in Ohio, let me tell you around Cincinnati we almost unseated 2 of our 3 Republican house reps in ’06. An Obama ticket gives the Dems a good shot at both. I’m sure this is true in other parts of the country as well. Obama is from the midwest and did community work there. He knows what’s wrong in one of the most hurt parts of the country (Ohio and Michigan have some of the highest unemployment in the USA). And some of you guys don’t realize that this is real shit, that needs real solutions. Punishing Bush and Cheney isn’t going to help anybody. Fuck those guys.

    Ultimately you will get a progressive agenda for the country by having
    1. A democrat as president.
    2. A majority of House of Reps as Dems.
    3. 60 or more Dem Senators (or as close as possible)

    Whether Chuck Hagel is Sec Def or not will not effect a progressive agenda much at all. What you want is a progressive prez, and a largely progressive legislature. We are more likely to get these things under Obama than Clinton, even if he appoints some R’s to key spots. And strategically, this isn’t a bad idea. You guys need to listen to some Republican talk radio or blogs once in awhile. Most of the Limbaugh-Kristol wingnuts hate these moderate Republicans, and it would be a great idea to drive a wedge between the RINOs and the wingnuts.

  141. kenga said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:22

    I happen to think that John McCain will beat him like a rented mule if the two of them match up

    Noted.
    I disagree – I think McCain has a better chance of winning against Clinton, because I believe Republican turnout will be higher than against Obama and Democratic-voting turnout would be lighter. I think Obama has both a better chance of winning, AND an Obama win will produce more Democratic seats in both houses of Congress than a Clinton win. And various state legislatures, county governments, school boards, etc.
    I also think, based on turnout in primaries and caucuses thus far, that my view has more empirical support.

  142. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:27

    kenga,
    you’ve crunched some numbers and I hope you’re right. I’m not a fan of either Clinton or Obama, but they’re both light-years better than McCain.

  143. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:33

    At the risk of repeating myself, as I’ve said before (I guess I AM repeating myself after all), the ’08 Presidential election is nothing more or less than a referendum on the bush/cheney policies.

    As such, the only REAL chance McCain ever had was to entirely divorce himself from bush/cheney – that is, to recognize that he was running against THEM every bit as much as he was running against the dems. Instead, he divorced himself from Don Rumsfeld.

    Either democrat nominated, barring some historic faux pas, will cruise to a substantial victory in November. McCain will have a very hard time taking 40% of the popular vote. This wave will also wash over the congressional elections.

    The danger for the winners will be to notice that after the ’06 midterms, when the dems repeatedly rolled over and played nice, their approvals plummeted. These people are NOT throwing their support to the dems because what they want is more of the same.

    Woe betide any elected dem who doesn’t understand the mandate under which he or she was elected…

    mikey

  144. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:34

    Yep.

    That’s right.

    I used the phrase “woe betide”.

    Got a problem with that?

    I’m old. It’s something we’ll just have to live with….

    mikey

  145. chopped liver said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:37

    I’d just like to step in and offer my sympathies to all of you who haven’t garnered any responses to your comments this evening. I personally thank you for your contributions, and hope you will continue trying.

  146. Jennifer said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:40

    I could live with the idea of neither Bush nor Cheney dying in prison if we can at least convene some fact-finding inquiries into their many, many crimes and publicize them widely.

    The reason these fucktards keep repeating on us is because they are never unmasked and never punished. I’ll live without punishing them, but if we don’t unmask them, they’ll be back every election. And, don’t be naive…they will try to make the tenure of any Democratic president a replay of the Clinton years. One way to shut that shit down is to embark on an endless round of investigations into their real crimes, so as to keep them on defense so they don’t have the time or standing to invent fake crimes for endlessly harassing the Democratic president. If it costs the Reichtards nothing, not even reputation or voters, to break the law whenever they gain power, there is no disincentive to doing it every time they gain power…which is essentially what we’ve been seeing for the past 30 years. They push the illegality a bit further with every new administration, because there’s no cost for doing it.

  147. Dhalgren said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:40

    Obama isn’t interested in revenge. But had better be interested in supporting retro-active investigations of the Bush administration said. As Kerry said in 2004, we don’t know how many uncovered scandals there are in that White House. We might be investigating Bush for a decade. Seriously.

  148. Jennifer said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:47

    You know, my kinkiest fantasy involves Nancy Pelosi stepping forward once the new Democratic president has been sworn in, and saying that the only reason she had ever put impeachment “off the table” was to keep Bush from issuing a bunch of pardons, and that now that he’s out of office, criminal investigations were being convened.

    Like I said, fantasy. Kinky.

  149. a different brad said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:48

    Well, Lakeesha, I guess I can only respond by sounding like a cultist.
    Obama is playing a whole different game than Hillary and McCain, and that’s why he’s going to cream McCain, tho Iraq will get all the credit. McCain is Bob Dole II, a a sacrificial lamb. He won’t be as passive in his demise, but the same ending is coming. McCain is, no matter his positioning in his party, the establishment candidate, the pro war, more of the same guy. Obama is change, he owns that word this election. Obama is appealing to our better selves, saying we can be more than this. That’s how a progressive goes on the offensive, and that’s why I’m willing to sip his kool-aid now and then. He was against invading Iraq, and he’s actively not affiliated with the DLC. Maybe Hillary’s health plan is better, maybe Obama’s is more realistic, I’m not that wonky on the topic so I won’t claim to know. But Obama is doing what I’ve been wishing a Dem would do my entire life, and it’s succeeding spectacularly. That means he’s going to be emulated, and that the Dems are on the cusp of something big.
    Yeah, I’m going all fanboy, but shit. Obama is the best political development of my lifetime. I don’t want him to be perfect, because that means he’s real.

  150. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:49

    “I say hang him (Rove), hang him from the highest yardarm of the USS Constitution…”

    Awesome. And we’ll make Mr. Bush clean up the seagull shit that falls on deck as they peck away at Karl’s stinking remains.

  151. kenga said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:50

    Lakeesha – “crunching” would be an overly generous description.
    It occurs to me that in all the primary contests so far, the thing I have been consistently most interested in is turnout – party v. party in particular, and the breakdown demographically after that. If the Democratic voters(and I’m assuming some statistically significant percentage of voters in the Democratic primaries will -never- vote D in the actual election) turn out at the same rates as they have for the primaries, the Republican nominee is going lose embarrassingly.

    If she’s the (D) nominee, I’ll happily vote Clinton, I believe she could be a very effective President – and let’s face it, anything that genuinely resembles competence will feel like an epiphany after what’shisname. She is more than simply competent.
    I’m not a Goldwater-gal-guy, though.
    I can’t say I’m an Obama fan(fan-atic) either, though I’ve come to respect him more as I’ve learned more about him. I don’t think he’s a “lightweight” – but, even if he is, he’s certainly proved with his cooperation with Lugar that he pays attention to serious shit, the the likes of which aren’t popular, sexy or photogenic. Just really really serious.
    And, as I said earlier, I think his potential coat-tails are nothing short of astonishing. That embarrassing loss I mentioned up top – spread that across federal, state, county and municipal levels of government. I mean, if we want a progressive shift in this country, we’re gonna have to do that anyway, maybe block-by-block. If we can do that this year? How can we not try to run the table?

  152. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:53

    I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, of course. but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?

    Why yes.

  153. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:54

    a different brad,

    That’s cool – I’m not busting on your choice. Hell, I’m a Socialist and I know I’m going to be thanksralphed into the next century, regardless of what happens.

  154. Max Renn said,

    March 3, 2008 at 2:56

    Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 1:29

    while all Republicans are wankers

    Just because I feel like stirring the pot here . . . yesterday I spent a fair amount of time over at Nancy Nall’s blog. She’s the former reporter who broke the Goeglein plagiarism thing that exploded on Friday, and the thread that spilled the beans on old Ted got pretty long. I read the whole thing, and I’ll tell ya, one of the things that impressed me was that if you ignored several of the frothing-at-the-mouth drive-bys from people who’d never heard of her before this week, the dialogue was principled, respectful, thoughtful, and on target. And it was playing out among people of a variety of political leanings, including those who call themselves conservatives. I was heartened by the number of them who espoused traditional conservative principles (fiscal restraint, for example) but expressed absolute disdain for Bushco and all its coattails. Of course, several said they’re pulling the D lever this time around, so they’re not, y’know, those republicans. But still. It was sort of hopeful.

    Quite right, SM. That Danny fellow and Jeff (the good Jeff who’s a minister and a regular on NN’s blog, not the weirdo freeper who could barely spell, and certainly could not type) gave me more than a little hope that there is some ballast and heft on the right side.

    Also, folks, this is a pure Pickelene article. It is AP Solomon style. Nedra and Gene would be thrilled to hang with Ms. Sarah Baxter. Nothing in Baxter’s piece is well-sourced. No where does she offer from the Obama campaign any more than bromides about his thinking on actual names for cabinet-level positions.

    Also, note this bit, which I think is classic Pickler journalism:

    Obama got a taste of McCain’s withering scorn last week when he was ridiculed for appearing to suggest in a televised debate with Clinton that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq. “I have news for you,” McCain chided him. The terrorist group was already there and was called “Al-Qaeda in Iraq”. Round one, by general consent, went to McCain.

    Obama believes he will be able to neutralise McCain by drawing on the expertise of independent Republicans such as Hagel and Lugar, who is regarded by Obama as a potential secretary of state.

    The first ‘graph here is utter nonsense, as Obama swiftly and resoundingly smacked McCain down in a speech the next day, throwing in a pretty good McCain impersonation at the same time, and using McCain’s own words to hammer McCain and Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve seen no indication in the American press beyond Fox News that ’round one’ went to McCain. Ms. Pickl . . . Baxter does not supply any sense of Obama’s rebuttal. Odd, eh?

    The second ‘graph is interesting because it is entirely unsourced. Not even a cite from an Anonymous Campaign Official does Ms. Baxter give. Could it be due to the imputation of ‘belief’ to Obama that exists only in Ms. Baxter’s mind? Heh, indeed.

    I think this article exists to reinforce the idea that McCain ‘won’ an exchange with Obama (which also supports the notion of an Al Qai’da boogyman in Iraq) while also reinforcing a narrative that without Lugar, Obama has nothing.

    This article is not journalism. It is propaganda. And it has no bearing on what Obama plans to do in the rest of the primary, or in the general election.

    I find it highly unlikely that Lugar or Hagel would support Obama. Do I find it likely that Rupert Murdoch can see all kinds of advantages in introducing these ideas into the discourse?

    Yes I Can!

  155. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:19

    Hey, chopped liver — anything in particular you felt was deserving of response but left ignored? I’ve got time. I’m just grading some inherently flawed essays here and a little distraction is always welcome . . .

  156. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:24

    Hell yeah. By a strange coincidence, I’m just WRITING some inherently flawed essays, so a distraction might actually serve the public good.

    I mean, come on. What are you, chopped liver?

    mikey

  157. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:33

    Hey mikey, this glass of Cotes du Ventoux is helping a lot. I mean, seriously, a lot. Can’t recommend it highly enough. Not sure whether it’ll blend with chopped liver, but it complements the inherently-flawed essay magnificently.

  158. Hooper said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:36

    Supreme Court Justice Rudy Ray Moore.

    Why hasn’t this film been MADE already?

    THE HONORABLE HUMAN TORNADO, ESQ.

  159. a different brad said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:38

    Lakeesha- If you’re willing to take that attitude then you’re probably the kind of socialist I can genuinely respect. I think the main difference between a socialist and a progressive is where you fall on the ideal versus practical axis, which isn’t the kind of polarity to fight over.
    Obama pushes the Overton window further in our shared direction than any other candidate, you have to admit, I hope.

  160. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:41

    At the risk of being boring and predictable, Mort, I’m deep into the Laphoraig to help fend off the impulsive violence that tends to develop when fucking around with linux machines. Truly the supermodels of the small computer world. Highly desireable, high performance, finicky and very high maintenance. Nothing is just easy. AARRRGGGHHHH.

    Over here, I’m screwing around with Ubuntu configuration files and desperately hoping I don’t do something fatally stupid.

    Over there, I’m trying to make Kmail see my yahoo mail account. I’ve about given up hope on that. Which means I gotta set up a goddam POP3 account? AARRGGGHH, I thought I was past that. Pop music, pop mail, my pop, three things I can really live quite happily without.

    *SIGH*

    I guess later in the week, when I’m feeling a little more sociable, I’ll get one of my geek buddies over here to dig me out of the hole I’m digging myself into tonight.

    The good thing about chopped liver is you never have to reboot it…

    mikey

  161. The Oracle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:42

    All I know, and being from Texas, is that many Republicans are crossing over to vote for Barack Obama in the early voting phase of the Democratic Party primary in Texas…with no intention of voting for Barack Obama in November.

    You can draw your own conclusions. I have.

    With the Republican nomination presumably wrapped up by John McCain, Republicans are now backing Obama, in Texas at least, because these Republicans either hate Hillary Clinton or they prefer their candidate facing Barack Obama in November instead of Hillary Clinton.

    Barack Obama reminds me of Joe Lieberman a whole lot. And we all know how Connecticut turned out, with Ned Lamont soundly whipping Lieberman in the Democratic Party’s senatorial contest, but then Lieberman later actually winning the senate seat after going “independent” and getting a whole lot of Republicans in Connecticut to vote for him.

    And now we hear of Barack Obama’s plans to fill cabinet seats in his administration, if he wins, with a bunch of Republicans.

    Now, I personally don’t have any problem with this, because there are plenty of Republicans who are members of the “reality-based community” who protect and defend our Constitution and the “rule of law” against all enemies of our nation, both foreign and domestic. Plenty of Republicans have served our nation honorably up in Washington, serving as members of federal agencies, enforcing our nation’s laws equitably and consistently and efficiently…and then there are the PNAC BushCo Republicans who have taken corruption to a whole new level, who are nothing more than a bunch of sexist, racist, religious fanatics.

    And now we hear Obama’s campaign manager using BushSpeak…the word “grow” to describe something expanding or increasing.

    I’m not fooled. Obama is using Lieberman’s playbook to literally “play” Democrats. Obama will never hold the outgoingcriminals in the Bush adminstration accountable for all the damage these BushCo crooks have done to our democracy.

    I still hope that a President Hillary Clinton will do what Barack Obama looks increasingly unwilling to do, especially with all his talk of putting the past behind us and being “bipartisan,” which is exactly what Joe Lieberman keeps saying, even as Lieberman continues to stab Democrats in the back up in Congress.

    We need, as a nation, complete investigations into the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. We need, as a nation, to uncover all the criminal acts committed by the most vile and corrupt administration in American history.

    This is why I voted for Hillary Clinton. I don’t believe a President Barack Obama will do anything but cave to the Republicans, who definitely want to bury all the sins of the Bush administration.

    BTW, if former Alabama governor Don Siegelman is still in prison in late Januray 2009, which Democratic Party presidential candidate, if elected president, do you think will immediately pardon Siegelman and open a Justice Department investigation into the Karl Rove “political hit” done on him???? Obama? I doubt it. But Hillary Clinton is used to Karl Rove’s “political hits,” so I imagine her doing everything in her power, if elected president, to right this wrong.

  162. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:53

    Lotsa claims there, Oracle. Not much in the way of support.

    And mikey,

    make Kmail see my yahoo

    you realize that might be illegal, right?

  163. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:54

    mikey and mort – for me its a Santa Ynez Valley Syrah with grilled flank steak that’s been marinating all day in an Asian peanut soy marinade.

  164. Mehitabel the Abyssinian said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:54

    linux machines. Truly the Abyssinian cats of the small computer world.
    Fixed. But I bet they can’t throw up on cue.

  165. Liver and Onions said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:54

    What am I, chopped liver?

  166. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:55

    All I know, and being from Texas, is that many Republicans are crossing over to vote for Barack Obama in the early voting phase of the Democratic Party primary in Texas…with no intention of voting for Barack Obama in November.

    Hi Ira. Ahem, I mean Oracle. So lemme ask a stupid question here.

    How, exactly, do you “KNOW” this? Have a couple hundred thousand of your closest republican friends told you this? Kinda sidled up in church and whispered it in your ear?

    You know, people aren’t as gullible as you seem to think they are. And when you put out something so seriously important and possibly inflammatory like the statement referenced above, and provide NO fucking supporting data, not even a link to a hack rightwing web news outlet, well, it’s pretty obvious who you are and what you’re doing. Hell, dude, I don’t think you can find people that stupid over at Townhall or Free Republic, but you WOULD have a better chance than you’ll have here..

    mikey

  167. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:55

    Its the wurst.

  168. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:57

    you realize that might be illegal, right?

    You have to remember who you’re talking to.

    That only makes it that much more interesting, right?

    mikey

  169. kenga said,

    March 3, 2008 at 3:59

    mikey, I happen to believe there are some Republicans supporting Obama in the primaries, I just think it’s going to bite them on the ass.
    Referendum indeed …

  170. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:00

    “Not sure whether it (Cotes du Ventoux) (will) blend with chopped liver…

    Hmmm, for chopped liver, I think I might like a crisp pinot grigio, or a muscadet – both on the over-chilled side – or maybe something a tad sweeter/fruitier, like a riesling, also very chilled.

    The first two wouldn’t compete with the strong-ish flavor of the liver, especially if it’s served with some thin sliced onion and maybe a touch of mustard. The riesling’s sweetness could be a nice counterpart to the liver’s creamy aspect.

    Beer also goes well with chopped liver. Beer goes well with anything.

    A favorite custom sandwich from my days behind the deli counter – light rye, baked salmon (not lox), chopped liver, thin sliced onion, brown mustard. Serve with a crispy half-sour pickle and some Doctor Brown’s Celery Tonic.

    Oh, yeah.

    (PS – Thx for the Ferlinghetti poem, Mort)

  171. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:01

    Funny, hattie, I was just going to say that to your cohort, Element 5, who’s getting just a little bit frothy.

    (heh) Chum……….that’s nowhere near to as “frothy” as I can get on this subject.

    Nor am I talking about “revenge” or “vendetta” or any other bullshit concept that might be used to obscure the naiveté of Obama bringing Republicans into his administration in support of this “hands across the aisle” wankery. If you read what I said, it concerned the restoration of law that has been abandoned in a wholesale fashion by the GOP (I haven’t heard anything from Hagel or Lugar about leaving their party in protest of these actions- not even to become Independents) and the reviving of the government that they tried to “drown in a bathtub” by emptying the Treasury into the pockets of corporations waiting to hand them their platinum parachutes.

    From what I hear, he’s looking to give Hagel the position of Secretary of Defense and Lugar, Secretary of State. Given the traditional links between the GOP and the military/industrial complex, coupled with the unrelenting horse-shit initiated by Bush and perpetually sustained by the GOP, it is madness itself to suggest to a war-weary nation that these two positions (in particular) should be filled by Republicans. Now, I can understand full well that Obamaites are hypersensitive (frothing, maybe) about criticism of their super-candidate and any super fucked-up position that decides to take a stand on (like this one), but that’s just too fucking bad, ain’t it?

    The truth of the matter is that the idiot you’re supporting (interesting, the choices we’re left with again….eh?) has just shown how unprepared he is for the job. Maybe you (and he) don’t get that you don’t bargain off positions like this to the other party to increase your chances, and that you don’t sell out your side when you have a chance to put proven anti-war Dems into those two *incredibly* important positions (I’m just waiting for Hillary to try to top him in the number of Rethugs she’ll put in her cabinet).

    The GOP is SO corrupt at this point in history that no one possessing *any* integrity would continue to affiliate his/her self with it, yet Hagel and Lugar remain PROUDLY Republican. Who in their right mind imagines that either of them would pursue (or support the pursuit of) the crimes that the GOP has committed since 2000? What kind of half-wit would stand here in a public forum and insist that we don’t have the time to seek justice for those crimes? “Punishing Bush and Cheney isn’t going to help anybody”??? What part of brazenly unconstitutional law-breaking at the highest levels doesn’t register with you people? Allowing that shit to go unpunished has led to an ever-increasing shit-storm of crime from these thugs and you don’t even recognize that going after the criminals behind Iran-Contra would likely have destroyed the entire neocon apparatus that initiated an unprovoked war on Iraq and will likely lead us to war with Iran!!! Cause and fucking effect, you dimwitted dip-shits!!!

    It’s one thing to talk about “working with the other party” (hell, EVERYBODY says shit like that) but it’s another thing to announce plans to plant politicians of the other side in the highest positions of your administration, where they can stymy and derail attempts to restore the Constitution and regain some sort of normal, non-hostile relations with the rest of this pathetically doomed planet again (thanks, GOP). Face it, your guy has fucked up BADLY and the only way out of it for him is to quickly say that he was completely misunderstood. We need MORE Dems controlling things, not LESS (you numbskull assholes).

    If you’re not *frothing* over Obama’s knuckle-headed plan to place Republican big-wigs at the topmost positions of his administration, you’re not paying attention (or you’ve fallen asleep and the pod has taken possession of your identity).

  172. D. Sidhe said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:04

    How about the Office of Apologizing to the World?

    You know, this Satan guy has some really good ideas.

    Personally, I expect neither Obama nor Clinton to act out my revenge fantasies upon the GOP assholes who have trashed the world. It seems like Clinton is more likely to do so, but then it seems like Obama’s more likely to beat McCain. I give both of those a fifty percent chance at best of happening, but both are invited to make my day by proving me wrong.

    But, hell, that’s why they’re revenge fantasies. You buy lottery tickets, I’ll fantasize about a president who punishes these fuckwits like they deserve. I’m sure we’ll both be disappointed, but my hope seems to have a longer shelf life.

  173. The Poles said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:04

    John “Bluto” Blutarsky for President. Thank you.

  174. Satan said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:08

    Huh. I’ve never understood why some people think anyone would listen to insults.

    Get this–we are goig to have big, big problems in the future. It’s not a matter of obama or clinton, it’s a matter of doing what has to be done. The actual persons mean nothing, because everyone will be forced to face hard choices.

  175. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:09

    Oh yeah, Rightwingsnarkle, that’s just what I needed — sammich porn!

  176. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:10

    Um, is it just me, or is this Satan fella making that God guy look kinda stupid?

  177. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:13

    that’s nowhere near to as “frothy” as I can get

    Thanks for demonstrating your amazing range.

    From what I hear, he’s looking to give Hagel the position of Secretary
    of Defense and Lugar, Secretary of State.

    From what you hear, eh? Do tell. What insider information do you have that you can’t be bothered to cite anything?

    the idiot you’re supporting

    We get it that you don’t like Obama. Enough said. You’re not going to convince anyone to change their minds with your unsupported assertions. So what is the reason you’re here posting, other than to harangue.

  178. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:14

    From what I hear, he’s looking to give Hagel the position of Secretary of Defense and Lugar, Secretary of State.

    I’m sorry to be blunt, and feel free to call me an asshole, as I tend to be one from time to time.

    But excuse me. Who the FUCK are you?

    “From what I hear”?? Dood, if you aren’t deep in the Obama campaign or heavily involved in a political consultancy in DC, you have just spewed your fantasies across the t00bz and made a pretty serious ass out of yourself.

    If you truly are inside, then I’m SURE you can get the news organizations to pay attention to this stunning inside information that Obama will not just involve republicans in his cabinet, as has been the suggestion, but he WILL give two of the three most powerful cabinet positions to the opposing party. This is gigantic.

    Or wankery.

    I know which one I think it is…

    mikey

  179. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:24

    If you’re not *frothing* over Obama’s knuckle-headed plan

    YYYYEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

  180. a different brad said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:24

    It seems all the folk behind the kev/saul/bb “phenomenon” are here in new clothes tonight.
    Wonderful.
    The saddest part is it seems they expect us to be worked up by this new tact.

  181. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:25

    We need, as a nation, complete investigations into the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War.

    The first of those sets off the kook alert of course…

  182. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:28

    From what you hear, eh? Do tell. What insider information do you have that you can’t be bothered to cite anything

    (Holy shit………..). Er, dude? Did you miss the fucking link that was the premise of this entire thread? Yeah. I’m guessin’ so.

    We get it that you don’t like Obama. Enough said. You’re not going to convince anyone to change their minds with your unsupported assertions. So what is the reason you’re here posting, other than to harangue.

    I don’t like *any* of the choices we’ve been left with (and any close look at the “voting” in these primaries would bring up a hellovalotta questions with anyone possessing a functioning nervous system). I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind/vote (to who, Hillary?), I’m pointing out that we’re all being sold out AGAIN, just like when we voted in a Democratic Congress to end the war (that worked well, right?). If you don’t grasp what I’m saying (and that it’s not just being mean *boo-hoo* to your precious Obama) then you ought to step to the sidelines and out of the spotlight (it makes you look….a trifle ridiculous).

    ***

  183. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:30

    I don’t like *any* of the choices we’ve been left with

    Gosh, what a unique situation.

  184. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:32

    A favorite custom sandwich from my days behind the deli counter – light rye, baked salmon (not lox), chopped liver, thin sliced onion, brown mustard. Serve with a crispy half-sour pickle and some Doctor Brown’s Celery Tonic.

    Wow. that’s intense. I’m not sure how I’d like a salmon/liver combo. Although I once used a recipe for baked salmon and bacon that was awesome. Did you have a name for this sandwich?

    But I DO love liver – chopped liver and liverwurst both. There’s a German cold-cut deli in the Valley that has at least 5 different kinds of liverwurst.

  185. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:35

    Jeezus christ, dork, what part of you got three choices are you having trouble understanding?

    You don’t get to change the dynamic. And no, those of us who accept REALITY are not stupid or delusional. We just recognize reality. You ought to try it.

    You don’t get saint paul, you don’t get napoleon, you don’t get JFK or curtis lemay or ronnie ray-gun.

    You get McCain, Obama or Clinton. Pick. Or shut up. ‘Cause it’s WAY too late to want somebody else. There’s no option. One of those people is going to win in November. Now, take a deep breath, take another pill, and pick one…

    mikey

  186. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:36

    Um. Element 5? We’ve read it. It’s the fucking Times of London, fer crissakes. The entire article is shoddily-sourced hyperbole, as we’ve stated above. Your assertions, on the other hand, put it to shame in terms of hand-wringing prognostication. Let me put it in simple terms: the Times piece makes a few unsupported claims. You then go light years beyond those claims into bucknuttyville to advance a whole lot more, and more specific, but still unsupported claims. So again — your source for all this inside info?

    One more time, for those in the nosebleed section: Obama isn’t “precious.” Neither is Clinton. One of them, however, is the best bet to keep a republican out of the White House in November — and it’s looking like Obama at this point. You got a practical alternative?

  187. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:38

    Did you miss the fucking link that was the premise of this entire thread? Yeah. I’m guessin’ so.

    Sadly no. What I got was that there was a story that was totally unsupported by any actual facts.

    You certainly jumped to some conclusions based on not much evidence.

    you ought to step to the sidelines and out of the spotlight (it makes you look….a trifle ridiculous).

    I beg your pardon? What spotlight do you refer to? I’m just chatting here with my friends. You’re the one riding in on a white horse like a self-appointed Paul Revere yelling that the sky is falling and we’re all gonna die.

  188. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:39

    For those of you who neglected to follow the link:

    Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet

    The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

    Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

    Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.

    Obama believes he will be able to neutralise McCain by drawing on the expertise of independent Republicans such as Hagel and Lugar, who is regarded by Obama as a potential secretary of state.

    Larry Korb, a defence official under President Ronald Reagan who is backing Obama, said: “By putting a Republican in the Pentagon and the State Department you send a signal to Congress and the American people that issues of national security are above politics.”

    Korb recalled that President John F Kennedy appointed Robert McNamara, a Republican, as defence secretary in 1961. “Hagel is not only a Republican but a military veteran who would reassure the troops that there was somebody in the Pentagon who understood their hopes, concerns and fears,” he said.

    Obama intends to pour more troops and resources into defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    What? You didn’t know this shit?

    Surprise.

  189. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:40

    I think there needs to be a JanusNode reciple module. Snag’s recipes are a good start.

  190. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:42

    What? You didn’t know this shit?

    My brain iz asplodin!

  191. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:44

    Element 5, you’re a little gullible if you think that those carefully selected vague assertions and truncated quotes back up the wild speculation that the author has made.

    Do you also spend your time worrying about the fact that “an insider” says that Britney Spears is pregnant?

  192. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:44

    This is what “you hear”?

    Oh, jeez, you’re a sad, sad little man.

    I’m sorry I mocked you. I don’t want you to hurt yourself.

    I’m sure you’re all dialed in and shit.

    [walks quickly out of the room. Calls attendant]

    mikey

  193. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:45

    I don’t think Element 5 got particularly high marks in reading comprehension.

    OK, one more time: check out who’s actually quoted. Now consider who they are (hint: either “Obama” or “not actually Obama” or “really not fucking Obama ’cause he’s a former Reagan staffer”). Now check what they’ve actually said. Now go to dictionary.com and check out “hyperbole.” And then take a pill. Or have a nice glass of wine. Either way. Maybe both. Just relax, man.

  194. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:47

    a different brad,

    shout, dude. alas, it’s not just idealism, it’s the whole capitalism thing that separates us. As you apparently are, I too am very, very worried about where the Overton Window is taking us – I see it as an Overton Black Hole that the conservatives no longer control, and that is sucking us down into Dominionism/Nazism/other total right-wing lunacies. I’m not sure why you believe that Obama can reverse this, but I certainly hope you’re right.

  195. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:47

    Oh, sure. Now I’m the one playing the Snarkolin to mikey’s Compassiaphone. That’s one funky tune.

  196. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:48

    Shoddily sourced? He was quoted directly when asked…..right?

    Look, one can see (and appreciate) the psychological concept of “avoidance” at work but SHEESH.

    So………those of you claiming that *it ain’t true* ’cause the writer done wrote a buncha lies!!………haven’t left thoughts upstream about how groovy it would be to have a kumbiya lovefest with Rethugs in Obama’s cabinet?

    ***

  197. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:50

    Element 5 is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much.

  198. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:50

    Mort, how’s the Cotes de Ventoux? My syrah is pretty nice. Lakeesha, I’d offer you a glass if you were within range. mikey will probably stick with Laphroig.

  199. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:52

    Why, thank you g, but I’m drinking the cheap shit tonight.

  200. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:55

    OK, one more time: check out who’s actually quoted. Now consider who they are (hint: either “Obama” or “not actually Obama” or “really not fucking Obama ’cause he’s a former Reagan staffer”).

    Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,”

    Yeah……..sorry about *my* reading comprehension (snort!).

  201. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:58

    and by the way, mickey, have you ever tried using a shot or so of Laphroig in a stuffing for a bird or a pig? I did that about 15 years ago at a Xmas party stuffing two chickens – rice, sausage, a bunch of other stuff (hey, I was really messed up), and a little L. Nice, other-worldly background.

  202. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 4:59

    146 minutes ago my delicious gazelle died. She took a record player to the tentacle and died some days thereafter. She used to cross those brains with that sense of concentration each time she used the litter-box.

  203. Hattie said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:02

    Oh I’ve posted plenty here. This thread is not your property,

    all right, darling. Be my guest. Show us your all. Is “twerp” a sample of your intellectural discourse?

    Why yes, indeedy.

  204. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:04

    He was quoted directly when asked…..right?

    yeah. When asked a leading question, he answered that he liked and respected the guy. THAT’s a smoking gun? Let me just point out a few things:

    1) you don’t know what he was asked. The reporter put it in her own words. You don’t know whether it was “Are you appointing Chuck Hagel to Sec of D?” or “People are saying he’d be a good Sec of D, what do you think?” or even “I understand you and Chuck Hagel have a good relationship.” You don’t know.

    2) you don’t know who asked the question. It may have been the reporter, but you don’t know.

    3) you don’t know how small a fragment the quotation is of his answer. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of taking something out of context?

    4) the story is littered with the reporter’s “impressions” and opinions and speculations as to her subjects feelings and plans. Do you really think the reporter knows these things from the source? Why do you take this as truth?

    For someone who’s so paranoid and freaked out and willing to believe a conspiracy, I am surprised that you are so gullible to not be acquainted with hack journalists printing selective quotations and using unattributed sources to build a story that reflects their own biases or tells the story they want to tell or that their publisher wants told.

    That one fragment of a quote – which says nothing about Obama’s intention, it’s only a positive comment about Hagel – is the ONLY statement from Obama that you’re hanging this incredible assumption on.

    further, you’re making a wild leap from speculating that maybe Obama will offer a post to Hagel to an entire construction of what the appointee will do once sworn in.

    Now, you may just be an excitable type. But please chill out, you’re not going to be able to take the pressure and stress of the remaining electorial campaign.

  205. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:05

    Lakeesha, I tend to use bourbon rather than scotch in my game and sausage, not to mention chili. It tends to leave a richer flavor when it cooks down. In reductions for pate and confit and the like I prefer brandy or cognac. But whichever you reach for, it is true that there are alcohol soluble flavors that simply require a hit o’booze, and sometimes wine is just not enough. And even if it is, the tendency for red wine to turn the sauce purple is kinda nasty.

    mikey

  206. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:06

    hattie’s back. Well, hattie, what are you drinking? If you’re going to stick around, I might as well offer you a drink. After Element 5′s hysteria, I actually appreciate your brevity.

  207. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:10

    mikey, definitely agree about bourbon in the reduction, though I question your typical liberal racism about the color purple. Do try a real peaty, smoky scotch like Laphroaig, though, as a background flavor with meat (I suspect it wouldn’t work well with fish or seafood). Just a shot or less can add something really interesting.

  208. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:11

    I bet scotch would work nicely with pork or with something like duck or turkey.

  209. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:12

    Disturbing revelations for Element 5.

  210. Robert U. Terwilliger, Jr. said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:13

    Vendetta! Vendetta!!

  211. J— said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:16

    Here’s Barack Obama addressing the issue in December of last year.

    Questioner: When you were mentioning the list of great Democrats in the past, Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy, by the way I hope in the future you mention Truman as well.

    BO: Truman was a good one.

    Questioner: Yes, but when you were mentioning those two, they were famous for having Republicans in their administration to help bring the country together. Are there any Republicans that you could tell us about tonight that you would like to be part of the Obama administration?

    BO: You know its premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean I’m pretty confident, but not that confident. We’ve still got a long way to go. I can tell you Republicans I respect though. Dick Lugar who I worked with on issues of arms control., wonderful guy we traveled together to Russia we toured nuclear facilities there. Talked to Russian generals about how countries could cooperate in reducing nuclear threats. He is somebody who embodies a tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible that is not ideological that is based on the idea that we have to have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world and we have to use diplomacy as a tool. Chuck Hagel, Vietnam veteran similar approach. Somebody whom I respect in a similar fashion. You know I don’t agree with him on much, but what Schwarzenegger is doing I think on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don’t agree with him on, but he’s taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven’t seen that same kind of leadership in Washington, but climate change should not be a partisan issue we’re all living on the same planet and there are ways of structuring an approach to climate change like a cap and trade system I’ve suggested. That can be market driven and generate investment and job opportunities that can grow the economy and that would be a very pro growth agenda over the long term.

    Granted, it’s from a few months back—a long time ago for some—but this longer, more detailed response is just as noncommittal as his one direct quote in the Times of London article.

  212. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:22

    yeah. When asked a leading question, he answered that he liked and respected the guy. THAT’s a smoking gun? Let me just point out a few things: (snip)

    He was asked about his possible choices for cabinet positions and he replied with Hagel’s name. That’s pretty straightforward and unless I’m badly mistaken, I saw him say the same thing on one of the debates.

    I’ll be the first to say that most political writing in “the media” is questionable (I simply assume that they’re boght and paid for by the GOP) but unless you’re going to toss out EVERYTHING rather than selectively choose what you think reflects well on your candidate, then one has to assume that the basic premise behind the article is correct (and it sure fits in with other “get along” horseshit I’ve heard from him). His apparant willingness to “forgive and forget” the crimes of the GOP simply don’t set well with those of us not hypnotized by his rhetoric.

    But please chill out, you’re not going to be able to take the pressure and stress of the remaining electorial campaign.

    Dude, that’s a given. I get that our world (and I use that word comprehensively) is heading towards a meltdown, I’m just hoping that someone will be smart enough to make it a *controlled* meltdown……and that ain’t a Republican skill.

  213. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:22

    Bubba, I’m deeply saddened by the news of your gazelle’s demise. However, I hope you are buoyed by the prospect of Element 5 serving as your secretary of defense.

    That is what you were saying, right?

  214. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:23

    Indeed. I’m a simple man, and I’ve learned to trust my more visceral reactions…

    mikey

  215. Tom The Patriot said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:26

    Obama hearts Republicans.

    Didn’t see this on any of the so-called lefty blogs. But there was lots of interesting stuff I also didn’t see on the so-called Dem blogs.

    First there was the Joe Wilson piece “Obama’s Hollow “Judgment” and Empty Record” (big surprise Huffington would run any critique of Obama):
    “Obama’s gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.”

    Then the LA Times Sunday on Women and Clinton:
    “There is an absence of discussion about what Barack Obama has done,” Malcolm said. “How many times have we seen a woman with the best qualification for the job being pushed aside for the man who was hired?”…
    “Roberts said Monday that King, the pioneering women’s professional tennis player, was dismayed about Clinton’s vulnerable candidacy. “I see my whole life going down the drain,” Roberts recounted King saying. “A cute young guy comes in and sweeps away all the hard work that the older woman has done.”"

  216. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:27

    He was asked about his possible choices for cabinet positions and he replied with Hagel’s name.

    sigh. You don’t know what he was asked. The reporter paraphrased the question and selectively quoted the anwer, printing only the park where he complimented Hagel.

    Let me ask you a question.

    If Obama’s answer was something on the lines of “Yes, I plan to appoint Chuck Hagel as Sec of D” — do you really think the reporter would have omitted that part of the quotation?

  217. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:29

    That is what you were saying, right?

    Element 5 is a man whose sensible non-ideological frothing I deeply respect and appreciate.

  218. a different brad said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:29

    Nah, I’m not particularly enamored of capitalism, Lakeesha. I’d be a socialist if I thought people could make any system work well, or at least better than any other. Truth be told, I don’t really give a damn about ideology. Best I hope for is relatively sane, intelligent people in power, whatever form that takes. Obama knows how to blow some of the silent whistles I’m attuned to, I guess.

  219. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:29

    Obama hearts Republicans.
    Here come the flying monkeys.

  220. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:30

    Oh me oh my. I walk away for a few hours and this is what happens. I’ll have to double up here for a bit.

    blah blah I know blah blah
    You can draw your own conclusions.

    Conclusion: The collective IQ of Texas was halved when Molly Ivins died.

    Not all Rieslings are sweet though a fruity, slightly sweet qbA or maybe even a Kabinett from a smaller Mosel Einzellage would do well with chopped liver.

  221. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:38

    I admire PeeJ. He can wander back into a firefight and focus on the important stuff. And by important stuff, I might mean Molly Ivins or I might mean wine. Who knows?

    Patriotic Tom: providing links is kind of a courtesy. However, I did cruise over to the LA Times to track down the Clinton piece, which was pretty clearly a sidebar feature focused on identity politics. Seriously, I’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee, no problem, but I truly do not want a nominee who gets the nod because of an attitude that says “it’s my demographic group’s turn, and people who aren’t supporting me are simply prejudiced against my biological category.”

  222. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:40

    OMG I’m so sorry Susan if you’re out there! Present company excepted!!! OMG I’m sorry

  223. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:40

    Can’t we just all agree on a young Gewurtz?

    mikey

  224. Satan said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:41

    Lol. No problem. She was the greatest.

  225. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:42

    Wow. I only just now read some of the comment thread accompanying the London Times article. Here’s my favorite:

    I would love to see all USA churchs have a special sermon on the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution! This first one has to do with the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of one religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. In a recent “street” survey, most people, and all teenagers could not tell one thing about the Bill of Rights! This is guaranteeing that you have the right to even GO to any church you want!!
    ( By the way, while I have your attention, please plant more lilacs and daphnes, you will be so happy) :)

    Miss May, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA

    Isn’t that nice? You go, girl! I wonder if she’s a beauty contestant. Or a pin-up of the month. I do love lilacs and daphnes, myself. They don’t do well in my climate, though.

  226. Susan of Texas said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:44

    Crap, I keep forgetting to change my name.

  227. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:47

    I basted a turkey with some single malt, but I was smoking the bird in my Weber over green sugar maple branches. It was fantabulous. I don’t recall which whisky precisely but I usually stick to Islays, Lagavulan as a general rule.

    Props to all for spelling ‘whisky’ correctly. Though it does make me sad that I couldn’t put an entry into for pedant prize.

  228. J— said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:50

    He was asked about his possible choices for cabinet positions and he replied with Hagel’s name.

    g covered this.

    That’s pretty straightforward and unless I’m badly mistaken, I saw him say the same thing on one of the debates.

    From the LA debate (1/31/08)

    MR. BLITZER: There may have been some nasty words exchanged, or angry words or whatever. But the question is this. Would you consider an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket going down the road?

    SEN. OBAMA: Well, obviously there’s a big difference between those two. (Laughter.)

    SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.)

    SEN. OBAMA: But, look, let me say this, and I said this at the top. I respect Senator Clinton. I think her service to this country has been extraordinary. And I’m glad that we’ve been walking on this road together and that we’re still on that road.

    We’ve got a lot more road to travel, and so I think it’s premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents, et cetera. I think it would be premature and presumptuous.

    I can say this about — about who I want not just as vice president but as a Cabinet member. Part of what I’d like to do is restore a sense of what is possible in government. (Applause.) And that means having people of the — of the greatest excellence and competence. It means people with integrity. It means people with independence, who are willing to say no to me — (scattered applause) — so that, you know, no more yes-men or -women in the White House — (applause) — and because I’m not going to be right on every single issue.

    But you know, it is really important, I think, for us also to give the American people this sense — as they struggling with their mortgages and struggling with their health care and trying to figure out how to get their kids in a school that will teach them and prepare them and equip them for this century, that they get a sense that government’s on their side — (applause) — that government is listening to them, that it’s carrying their voices into the White House.

    And that’s not what’s happened over the last seven years. And whether it’s my Cabinet or it is the lowest federal civil servant out there, I want them to understand they are working for the American people, to help the American people achieve their dreams. That’s the reason I’m running for president of the United States of America. (Applause.)

    MR. BLITZER: So is the answer yes? Is that — sounds like a yes, that she would be on your short list.

    SEN. CLINTON: (Chuckles.)

    SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I’m sure that Hillary would be on anybody’s short list. (Laughter.) So –

    Oh, my God! Your’re right. Not only did Obama commit to putting Republicans on his cabinet, he picked Clinton as his running mate!

  229. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:51

    Oho! So THAT’s why I didn’t see you before. Clever girl.

    And now, for something completely different.

    (Watch the whole thing, it keeps getting better)

  230. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:52

    Susan, I knew you were Satan. Um. I meant that as a compliment.

    PeeJ, you can head up the Whisky Pedant team, but only if you promise to spell Lagavulin correctly . . .

    [/spelling Nazi]

  231. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 5:59

    Aw J., why’dja go and bring evidence into it? That’s not the way to smack them around. Well, okay it is but here’s what I mean: It’s no fun that way. I mean, *anybody* can fact check. Even a fifth element (Boron…Moron?…bore on and on?) could do it. Couldn’t it?

  232. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:01

    you can head up the Whisky Pedant team,

    What are the uniforms like?

  233. J— said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:03

    I’m a fool for transcripts.

  234. sxwarren said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:03

    Does the President really need to be personally involved with (and, therefore, distracted by) the revenge thing? Can’t he/she just appoint somebody like Hellboy or The Punisher as AG, tell them to follow up on Congressional investigations and then turn his/her attentions to working the progressive agenda?

    Of course, that would mean also appointing a Press Secretary who’s really good at convincing the Press Corps that the bloodcurdling screams of agony coming from the interrogation rooms at the Justice Dept. are simply their imagination.

  235. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:03

    *meep* It’s the GIN, I blame the GIN!!!!!!

    Fcuk. Okay, it’s not even gin, but genever. [gwon, g'haid: try to spell nazi THAT!] I’ll just go hang my head in shame now. In the freezer. Where I keep my Corenwyn.

  236. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:08

    Is S,N! a so-called lefty blog or a so-called Dem blog? I am disappointed that Tom the Patriot did not mention ‘so-called crap music video blog’ among the list of options.
    Some people are trying to co-opt S,N! as a so-called wine-whisky-cuisine blog.

  237. sxwarren said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:09

    On another note,

    For me, which wine with chopped liver depends a lot on the qualities of the specific chopped liver. When in doubt, though, a lightly chilled estate-bottled Riesling Spatlese from the Rhein (say, a Niersteiner or a Hattenheimer), maybe ten to fifteen years old, rarely fails.

    Caveat: this from someone who breakfasts on cherry kriek, dark chocolate and walnut scones.

  238. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:10

    Where I keep my Corenwyn.
    This is very disturbing. Tell us more about Corenwyn.

  239. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:13

    Oooh. There’s absolutely nothing quite like an aged spat. I’m particluar partial to Rheingaus myself. Once had the pleasure of enjoying a 45 year old Rheingau Auslese, a full 750 between three people. Ahhhhhhhh.

    And if there’s no sammiches in the cusine, I don’t want any part of it.

  240. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:19

    Don’t hang your head in shame, PeeJ. Come with me to sxwarren’s place. There we shall put on our Whisky Pedant uniforms and have cherry kriek, dark chocolate and walnut scones for breakfast! Although that probably won’t clearly define us as either lefty or Dem. Maybe if we watch some crap music videos while we’re at it?

  241. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:20

    Er, Corenwyn? Is it disturbing that I keep it in my freezer? I got addicted to that shit when, in the 90′s, I had to go to Amsterdam every couple months for work. The company’s European headquarters was there, you see? It was so hard. *Smrkfkrrfkf* But I made the sacrifice. *ha ha smrfhk ha*

    Anyway, Corenwyn (I always get the Bols in the brown ceramic bottle), kept in the freezer, pours out in a ropy, lightly amber stream of viscous nectar. It tastes sort of like gin. Sort of.

    What more can I tell you?

  242. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:21

    Some people are trying to co-opt S,N! as a so-called wine-whisky-cuisine blog.

    That’s odd. I thought this was a Rats n’ Brassica blog.

    Once had the pleasure of enjoying a 45 year old Rheingau Auslese

    Ooh, I haven’t had an Auslese in ages. And they are so good! I think a chicken liver mousse might be delicious with one.

  243. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:22

    (I always get the Bols in the brown ceramic bottle)

    I almost wish I didn’t know what Bols is. Ignorance in this case would allow me to envision a rather spectacular, er, physical condition. Let’s leave it at that.

  244. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:25

    Well gee, they manage to get plums and pears and other fruits in bottles, don’t they? I just don’t see your problem here.

  245. mikey said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:27

    Ok, I don’t know crap from your cherry creek, but I am a HUGE scone fan, and you wanna do dark chocolate and walnut scones, I’m willing to set aside, oh, I dunno, whaddaya think we’ll need, five, six hours to get ‘em right?

    Bring it…

    mikey

  246. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:28

    Dang, you got me on that one. Rats ‘n Brassica? Cabbage with……?

  247. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:30

    Buttered Ladybug with Fresh Salted Mousses

    Buttered Mandrill with Delectable Braised Warms

    Pickled Gilamonster with Anxious Braised Corns

  248. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:30

    It’s the infamous Brussel Sprouts. I said “Brassica” cause I didn’t want to upset mikey.

    Oh shit. I bet he’s listening.

    and there’s also rats.

  249. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:32

    Er, Corenwyn? Is it disturbing that I keep it in my freezer?
    So long as it’s an “it”, and not a “her”.

    Rats ‘n Brassica?
    Clearly PeeJ has managed to miss the earlier Frank-and-open-exchange-of-views about the sprouts that dare not speak their name.

  250. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:33

    ooohhh ooohhh ooh new thread upstairs!111!elentyone!!

  251. ran said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:33

    oh he’s going to disappoint you brad. dude called Joe fucking Lieberman his mentor.

    fuck him.

  252. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:34

    Even as I write, the boffins at Bimler Laboratories are working on perfecting the world’s first Brussel Sprout Liqueur.

  253. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:37

    Buttered Ladybug with Fresh Salted Mousses

    Buttered Mandrill with Delectable Braised Warms

    Pickled Gilamonster with Anxious Braised Corns

    These are a few of my favorite things . . . .

    Oh, OK. OK. I’ll go check out the new thread. Sheesh.

  254. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:38

    Oh Smutsy, that’s harsh. Really harsh. When and where can can I try it?

  255. Jennifer said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:40

    I thought this blog was all about brussels sprouts.

    That, and giant bags of dicks.

  256. g said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:43

    I thought it was a bowl of dicks. A basket of dicks? something like that.

  257. Element 5 said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:43

    Oh, my God! Your’re right. Not only did Obama commit to putting Republicans on his cabinet, he picked Clinton as his running mate!

    Sweet. Now, given how many hours that this story has been out, I’m sure his senior advisors have been disavowing the shit out of it, right?

    Maybe you can get me THAT quote?

    (chirp, chirp………chirp, chirp)

    ***

  258. D. Sidhe said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:43

    This blog and Townhall make me regret I stopped drinking. But for different reasons.

  259. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:46

    Maybe you can get me THAT quote?

    Just a sec.

  260. B.P.R.D. said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:48

    We have never heard of this Hellboy.

  261. Jennifer said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:48

    g – you’ll have to ask Me. I think it was a big bag of dicks orginally, though. Then someone took the dicks out of the bag and put them in a bowl.

  262. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:49

    he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.

    So Obama (1) cannot talk about his cabinet preferences, for fear of offending the powerful Interior Decorator lobby; and (2) is relying on these preferences-he-cannot-talk-about, to offset the perception among the press that McCain has expertise.

    [grapples for adequate comparison]
    I’ve read software documentation that made more sense than that Times article.
    Hell, I’ve I’ve read written software documentation that made more sense.

  263. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:53

    Mang! The Clyde is severe this evening/morning/whereeverthehellintheworldyouare.

    Written software dox? WTF is that?

  264. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 6:57

    Barbecued Extracurricular Seal with Pickled Celeries

    Broiled Marmoset with Demented Salted Peanutses

  265. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 7:05

    Braised Waxen Mandrill with Incoherent Salted Ices

  266. PeeJ said,

    March 3, 2008 at 7:09

    Two orders of the marmoset, extremely rare.
    Bourbon for me, goat’s milk for the rest of you.

  267. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 7:17

    Broiled Crimson Chimpanzee with Fiery Crisped Livers

    Man, I gotta come up with some cooking instructions but I’m having too much fun with the titles.

  268. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 3, 2008 at 7:40

    I’ll pay top dollar at your eatery any time, RB.

    Oh, and Element 5, it’s bad form to “chirp chirp” without first waiting to determine that you have been ignored.

    OK.

    Now you may chirp chirp.

  269. Smut Clyde said,

    March 3, 2008 at 8:02

    I think it was a big bag of dicks orginally, though. Then someone took the dicks out of the bag and put them in a bowl.

    Artfully arranging them in the process; creating a stark yet gentle composition, evocative of the mountains and of the forces of nature.
    Ikebanana? Bonesai? This needs work.

  270. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 8:07

    Iced Gazelle with Dressed Macadamias
    Herbed Cheery Squirrel with Raw Shredded Soybeans

    That last one doesn’t sound too bad.

  271. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 8:19

    Braised Obsolete Porcupine with Creamed Waters

  272. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 3, 2008 at 8:37

    Sugared Lovely Vicuna with Chilled Chocolates

    Glazed Gopher with dried Buckwheats

    Ayn Rand’s Ox Ketchup

    Madonna’s Personal Flea Cake

    Bob Dylan’s Roasted Mustang Kugel

  273. Dr BLT, Recovering Troll said,

    March 3, 2008 at 9:13

    The last time Merle Haggard was in town, and performed in his old stomping ground right here in Bakersfield, California, it sounded like he wished he could take back the song he wrote about Hillary. Perhaps, like me, he began to see:

    The Other Side of Hillary
    Dr BLT copyright 2008
    http://www.drblt.net/music/OtherSideHill.mp3

    Oh, BTW, that was also…

    The Day Merle Haggard Stole my Pen
    Dr BLT copyright 2008
    http://www.drblt.net/music/DayMerleDemo2.mp3

  274. Dr BLT, Recovering Troll said,

    March 3, 2008 at 9:24

    Oh, BTW, I was also tempted to pull this song of the web, but, instead, I decided to add a sub-title. If you here a little Merle influence in the song, perhaps it’s because it was produced by Merle Haggard’s right-hand man of 20 years, Mark Yeary, formerly of Merle Haggard and the Strangers:

    Merle Hasn’t Lost His Fightin’ Side
    (Wishful Thinking)
    Dr BLT copyright 2008
    http://www.drblt.net/music/MerleVeryLast.mp3

  275. Hattie said,

    March 3, 2008 at 10:14

    The whole problem is, nobody’s getting enough. I know I’m not!

  276. sxwarren said,

    March 3, 2008 at 13:23

    Tournedos of Shrewish Short-tailed Opossum with Defenestrated Frijoles Borrachos (a Paraguayan favorite).

    Curled Three-day-old Dominos Pizza marinated in Gallo Muscatel (comfort food from my youth).

  277. Yonna said,

    March 3, 2008 at 14:08

    heh. You said taint.

  278. El Cid said,

    March 3, 2008 at 15:32

    I don’t think it’s an awful idea to find a few of the remaining, surviving moderately sane Republicans to make your administration look a lot more “awesum bipartisan” than it is.

    In fact, it’s a lot better than having a bunch of right wing or right wing surrendery Democrats carrying out right wing policies because they think it looks ‘awesum bipartisan’.

    Having Democrats act bipartisan-y means their policies must be right wing.

    Having a few of the comparatively saner Republicans means their policies are ‘bipartisan’ by definition, whether they appear right wing, centrist, or center-right.

    (The likelihood of their policies actually seeming liberal or left seems rather small, so I left it out.)

  279. The Whup-Assity of Hope « BIG INK said,

    March 3, 2008 at 19:00

    [...] politics. Second, the Sadly, No!bodies capture a certain something I can agree with, as to their dream candidate. Greenwald notes why compromise and more compromise can be a dangerous thing. Explore posts in the [...]

  280. tigrismus said,

    March 3, 2008 at 19:14

    Hell yeah, El Cid! Especially Republican senators from states with Democratic governors… FEEL THE BIPARTISANSHIP!

  281. Suburban Guerrilla » Blog Archive » Dittos said,

    March 3, 2008 at 20:09

    [...] What Brad said. I’ll be so depressed if he takes this “bipartisanship” nonsense seriously. Personally speaking, I’d like any Democratic candidate to spend their whole first day in office standing atop the White House roof dressed in pirate garb shouting “NOOOOOOOO PRISONERS!!!!!” at the top of their lungs. I want someone who will appoint Rudy Ray Moore as a Supreme Court justice, who will punish the Keyboard Kommandos by passing a Constitutional amendment banning Cheetos and Funyuns, and who will look into every Republican’s eyes and tell them that he drank their milkshake. HE DRANK IT UP!!! [...]

  282. Rick Taylor said,

    March 3, 2008 at 21:38

    Most of the time, I don’t like Obama’s appeals to bipartisanship, and his habit of dismissing progressives. But specifically giving positions to Republicans like Lugar and Hagel isn’t a bad idea. Lugar in particular has shown pretty good foreign policy chops, and we can’t afford to waste talent like that for partisan reasons.

    Plus on a tactical level, you want to unite your friends, and divide your enemies. The right wing is already cracking at the seams, screaming than even someone like McCain is unacceptably liberal. This will help to drive them even crazier. I’m all for it.

  283. What makes a man turn neutral? « tomemos said,

    March 4, 2008 at 23:01

    [...] roll my eyes and spit when Clinton releases a fearmongering ad, or when Obama lets it be known that he might appoint Republicans to his cabinet. And lest you think that I’m dedicated to the idea that the candidates are exactly equal, it [...]

  284. LanceThruster said,

    March 5, 2008 at 2:14

    Yeah, to hell with playing nice with Rethuglicans. Remember their motto, “Work is for those who don’t know how to plunder.”

  285. tofubo said,

    March 5, 2008 at 14:41

    thanks for the derbyshire reference, it needs to get out more

    not becuase i’m anti-clinton, it’s just very telling nro would host that type of person

  286. zimbardo said,

    March 6, 2008 at 7:48

    Really? I mean, really?

    Look, don’t let the fact that you spend hours each day combing the web for right-wing nonsense eat at your brain and warp you like this…

    On the one hand there are Wingnuts: those are spewing all this crap on the internet that we use to chuckle ourselves into seizure country, only to wake up in a cold sweat at 3 in the A.M. gripped with terror that they might, god forbid, they might actually be more than two-bit snake oil salesmen updated for modern times with internet connections, that they might actually be SERIOUS…

    Okay, on the other hand, there is the roughly half of the people that vote in this country, those that choose to vote Republican. Quick caveat: I don’t know why they do it. It pains me that they do it. I wish they didn’t, naturally.
    But they do. They comprise members of my immediate family, close friends, former co-workers, fellow students, and thank god, no one I have ever dated.
    In general they are no stupider, no more dastardly, coldhearted or pigheaded than several of the liberals that we know.

    I know bi-partisanship is one of those constant, much maligned, and usually rightfully so, political narratives. But hey, all I’m saying is that a fair number of people I mentioned in the paragraph above would like to vote for Obama. Of those that won’t, many would feel far more represented by him than by Hillary, or than I would feel represented by McCain. I actually think it is very impressive that Obama’s theme of bi-partisanship has resonated more in the primary than the Edwards “republicans-evil, smash corporations, blah blah” bullshit. I mean, we are seriously pissed off here. We felt, eight fucking years ago, that an election was stolen from us, and it has been a shit-storm since. We have had our patriotism questioned, were led, under comprehensively ignored protest into a completely unnecessary war, supported by freaking tax cuts while spending rose, etc. etc. the list goes on from there… But shit, we still, collectively, have gone for the guy that seems to want to represent all Americans rather than a guy who acted like he would bring to fruition our little wet dream revenge fantasy (yeah, I’m leaving Hillary out of this, let’s just say I think she falls into the middle here, where I’m sure she would be comfortable, DLC, triangulating, Professional that she is). I choose to call that maturity, of Obama and his supporters. The little “nyah-nyah i told you so, you nasty re-pugs” would be fun for a week or two, but shit, I’d much rather have someone that will make an effort to reach across the exaggerated political divide between Americans that want what is best for this country, and Americans that want what is best for this country but voted for the other guy, and try to let everyone be represented. Its a tall order, and Obama is going to fall short of the hype, but hell, I personally see the potential for quite a bit of progress at least.

    Rather than wrapping up my point, I elect to just peter out here….

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()