“Obama and the hoi aristoi”
By NoQuarter on July 3, 2008 at 9:10 AM in Barack Obama, Electability, Elitism, Hillary Clinton, IOwnMyVote.com, JustSayNoDeal.Com, Qualifications
Victor Davis Hanson offers up another quote-rich piece, “Obama and the hoi aristoi” at The Corner. Here are a few (it’s such a fun read, I wish I could just reprint it in full):
[...]
One paradox about the Obama campaign is that in terms of aggregate cash, most of his total donations are of the larger sort, and they tend to come from the informational, investment, and financial class that has done so well by globalization. … [W]hy such lop-sided support from these elites?
[...]
Many enjoying the good life worry that their own privilege in some sort of way comes at the expense of someone else, or they fret that their present lifestyle in ecological terms is hardly sustainable. That concern does not translate into much concrete action. SUVs (Mercedes rather than Yukons) are no rarer in Palo Alto than in Fresno, while such progressives are just as likely, or more so, to abandon the public schools, to keep their children out of East Palo Alto or away from the Redwood City ho polloi, and sent off to and on their way at elite prep and public schools. To sum up, Obama offers a reassuring sense of self-image: one can still maintain all the current mechanisms one is accustomed to in ensuring privilege, but visible support for Obama offers a sense of atonement and alleviation of guilt at rather modest cost. …
Somehow an Obama sticker, sign on the lawn, or a lapel button has become the equivalent of a crucifix around the neck of a prosperous 16th-century burgher: easy fides of inner good and a valuable totem in reconciling the apparent irreconcilable.
Ah yes, the allure of the pride that comes from feeling morally superior.
I vividly remember my early support for Hlillary Clinton.
Let’s just say it wasn’t the “fashionable” choice.
It should have been a “valuable totem”: Here I was supporting a rare female candidate for president and the first woman in U.S. history to win a primary contest.
I “tried on” the other candidates. Bill Richardson has quite a resume but, after I heard him stick his foot in his mouth a few times, he concerned me. Biden and Dodd remained possible choices.
I “tried on” John Edwards and liked what I heard, but was a bit concerned about the number of years in elected office, although I could visualize him having what it takes to sit in the Oval Office and make the hard choices.
I glanced at Barack Obama, but it was a no-brainer not to choose him. He didn’t have the experience or the qualifications, yet. And there was something about him that told me he didn’t have the guts to make the tough decisions a president must make.
So I stuck by my oddly unfashionable choice of Hillary Clinton.
For the first time I can remember, I had chosen to support a candidate for whom my admiration grew daily — and who didn’t end up embarrassing me.
Her knowledge blew me away. Her abilities to debate circles around the other candidates impressed me. And, the longer she ran, the more at ease she became with her audiences and the more clear it became that she truly, deeply cares about the people of this country, and the future of this country.
I’m so glad that Pagan Power posted the $20.08 Fourth of July pledge.
Hillary Clinton has helped more people in this country — in real ways.
Ask Alegre, who wrote a moving story here, “She Changes People’s Lives,” about how Hillary’s efforts paved the way for care for Alegre’s special little boy.
Ask MarkJay, whose powerful story I shared with you here, “Four Reasons, By a Father I’ve Come to Know.”
She’s earned our commitment through real deeds that have made a real difference.
She’s also earned our nomination as the Democratic party’s candidate for president.
I’ll grant you it’s not Rolling Stone-cool to support Hillary.
But it sure makes a lot more sense.
And I’m so relieved Hillary didn’t say that “Jay-Z and Ludacris were “great talents and great businessmen.” (Wait ’til you see Uppity Woman’s story this afternoon!)
“I’ll grant you it’s not Rolling Stone-cool to support Hillary.
But it sure makes a lot more sense.
And I’m so relieved Hillary didn’t say that “Jay-Z and Ludacris were “great talents and great businessmen.” (Wait ’til you see Uppity Woman’s story this afternoon!)”
It’s the dumbing down of America on steroids. It used to be that the superficial vanity was restricted to Hollywood, but in recent years, EVERYTHING has become info-tainment. Journalists are now nothing more than celebrities (for the most part), sports figures, chefs, etc. Everyone wants to be a STAR, like this is friggin’ high school. What a bunch of arrested adolescents.
We don’t need a rock star for president (and I beg to differ with the ‘Obama is cool’ meme–don’t see it myself) for God’s sake. We need an experienced, deeply knowledgeable, courageous, diplomat and statesperson. It is unfathomable that we have not learned this after 8 years of Bush.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. i.e., McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, et al. Thank God for PUMAs. My own party kicked me to the curb despite the fact that I am among a constituency necessary for a win. Go figure.
me too, thanks
I never thought I would agree with Victor David Hanson, but he nails it about residents of Palo Alto, their Mercedes and Lexus SUVs, and their private schools. My own neighbor here wears Obama like a fashion statement and therefore feels absolved of any guilt arising from status, wealth or race.
Yes, and based on the following letter (just one of many, many examples), it’s clear that Obama is not courageous or a statesperson:
February 6, 2006
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.
As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.
Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.
As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senate
I’ve heard many times that John McCain has no respect for Obama who’s screwed him over at least twice in Senate negotiations — over immigration reform legislation as well. Now, Hillary is one senator who McCain respects. They also genuinely like each other.
thank you for posting this. It says it all. I am voting for MacCain, if Hillary is not our niminee.
Funny that you think Hillary was the “unfashionable” choice. To mmy recollection, she was the leader in every single national poll by a wide margin all throughout the pre-primary period.
And funny that the guy you quote plays Obama as the choice of the super-wealthy, globalization capitalist elites. Two thirds of the time on NQ, Obama is the super-leftist choice of the radical Communists, and Hillary is the tribune of moderate centrist values. And then for about a third of time, like here, Obama is the sold-out corporatist globalizing Reaganite capitalist conservative, and Hillary is the true progressive. And it doesn’t seem to bother anyone the slightest bit that these two frothing characterizations are in direct contradiction of one another.
Oh, and I’ll hang on with bated breath for the Jay-Z story! Good to know you guys are keeping your focus on the important issues: finding as many scary black people as possible to associate Obama with! Eyes on the prize, and all that…
Funny, only the trolls bring up skin colour, over and over and over and over…they are the true racists. I couldn’t give a shit about a person’s skin as long as they’re qualified to do the job. Barky is a coke user and an idiot. And he employed Rovian tactics at my caucus. And another point, if a person is a racist, aren’t they more likely to be a sexist as well? And seeing how we voted for a female and Obama spawn called Hillary the most vile things, who are the more likely racists?
amen!
“Funny, only the trolls bring up skin colour, over and over and over and over…”
I am glad you pointed that out because it is absolutely the case. The trolls seem to be taking the cue from their master.
You’re a smarty, sfhillary. Surely you’ve noticed Obama is impossible to pin down about anything. So why should contradictory views bother us?
sfHillary - please get 2 or 3 jobs during your summer break to send money to the DNC!! They’ve already had to cancel over 50 parties for Denver due to lack of funds.
PUMA!
he he
Obama is a fraud. I even cancelled my Rolling Stones subscription as they are so in the tank for Obama. The Dems deserve the loser. I will never give them another dime!! EVER
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/
Republician For A Day
Victor David Hanson is now a source for you guys? Why don’t you just come clean and admit you’re all Republicans?
Victor is an academic, works in the same field as I do, and is one smart cookie. His grew up in a farming family in the central valley of CA and worked his butt off trying to save the family farm after the Fat Cats sold out American agriculture.
It’s people like BO (and probably you) that turn Democrats into Republicans. I’ve voted straight Dem for almost 40 years but if it comes down to BO or McCain in my state, you can be sure that I will do what I can to help BO lose.
I used to think being called a Repub was an insult until BO came around. Now being called a DNC Dem makes my skin crawl.
He’s a Republican academic, a smart Republican cookie, from a farming Republican family. He’s a Republican, just like Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other American heroes that PUMAs love to quote to demonstrate how evil Obama is.
And if Obama is the sort of person who turns Democrats into Republicans, why did his campaign get a record number of new Democratic Party registrations during the primaries? And why do they have the largest field operation in U.S. history out in all 50 states registering new Democratic voters right now? And why, just this morning, is there a striking new poll out showing Obama ahead of McCain by 5 points in Montana?
You need to understand that the Obama you see, and the voting public you see, bear no relationship to reality. In reality, Obama is probably the most popular crossover Democratic presidential candidate among independents, moderates and Republicans since, maybe, Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Clearly ignorant ravings from too much kool aid, sf. BO will go down like the Titanic, just like McGovern, Dukakis,Kerry et al. They were much farther ahead in the polls at this point in the election cycle than BO is over McCain.
And if you’re a representation of today’s trolling, we’re going to get really bored.
Can you ask to be replaced by someone a bit…smarter?
I shudder with humiliated respect for your rapier wit, Medusa, and cower before someone who is obviously my intellectual superior. Yes, like most Republicans, you enjoy invoking McGovern, Dukakis, et al. But we live in a very different world today; past performance is no guarantee of future results, the only race that was even remotely recent enough to constitute a meaningful comparison is ‘04 (stop me if I’m not writing with sufficient intelligence for you), and in fact (that’s in reality, I mean, not in your fantasy world) Obama is now further ahead of McCain than Kerry ever led before his convention. And demographics favor Obama FAR more this year than they did Kerry in ‘04: there are far more Democrats, far more young people, far more Latinos, and far more independents, all of whom favor Obama over McCain by considerable margins. In your happy little delusion land, Obama is in trouble. In reality, he is leading McCain by virtually every statistical and electoral college measure, and putting up numbers — like leading McCain by 5 points in MONTANA, for god’s sake — that have McCain so freaked out he just fired his campaign manager. Again.
LOL. You go girl with the ad hominims about how smart I am. You are living in a dream world. Seriously. You haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about this year. Obama going to crush McCain like fucking bug.
let’s see, half of the dems DO NOT like Obama — wait! that was BEFORE he sold out the real lefty causes (already!) - so maybe by now it’s
less than 1/2….
all he repubs Do NOT like Obama
hmm. math is gonna be tricky come november
read your huffington, wapo, and olbermann’s latest rant before you think I am delusional…
your boy is going down…
If you are right, those numbers will start showing up in the state by state and national polls. So far they have not, and until they do, I stand by my assertion, based on the existing polling data, that Obama is winning.
Some quick facts from 2004 that don’t bode well for ochangealot:
64% of Americans voted in 2004, the highest since the 68% who voted in 1992 … for BILL CLINTON
2004 registered 72% new voters … highest since BILL CLINTON
2004 74% women voted vs 71% men
2004 72% voted 55 and over vs 47% 18 to 24 — only 58% of whom are registered to vote ….
And they were voting AGAINST Bush.
Your guy is toast.
Don’t wade into waters you do not understand, beebop. In 2004, party ID was split 43-43. Today, the Democratic Party leads the GOP something like 48-38, and there are more independents than ever before, and Independents prefer Obama by a very wide margin. As do women. And blacks. And Latinos. And people under 30, of whom there are also far more, both in sheer numbers and as a percentage, than in ‘04.
What’s more, McCain inspires far less enthusiasm among the Republican base. Bush squeaked through in ‘04 because of immense turnout from the evangelicals. There is simply no chance that McCain will get those voters — not in sheer numbers, and not as high a percentage; the evangelical coalition is cracking along with the rest of the GOP coalition that assembled around Reagan 30 years ago.
As for the overall numbers you cite: we’ve had record turnout in this primary and can probably expect record turnout in November. Obama has repeatedly set voter registration records during the primaries and has the largest volunteer organization in U.S. political history out registering new Democrats all across the country. I see no reason why the % of women voting in November should be expected to decline, and we have every reason to expect that women will give a larger advantage to Obama than they did to Kerry: 9/11 was still fairly recent back in ‘04, and we were at war, and Bush was still fairly popular, and Kerry still came within a few Ohio voters of winning. Since than Iraq has collapsed, Hurricane Katrina destroyed the Republican Party’s legitimacy, the economy is in freefall, every conceivably demographic change has shifted the ground in the Democrats’ favor, we’ve had the ‘06 tsunami in which every single contested or open Congressional seat that changed party hands switched to a Democrat (go see if you can find a more universal wipeout election, ever, than ‘06), and since then, there have been three special elections which put deep-red, safe GOP seats into Democratic hands. And Obama continues to lead McCain in virtually every single impartial electoral college matchup.
But hey, you continue to delude yourselves that Obama is “toast,” “unelectable,” “cannot win.” You have a few more months to have fun with your cute little fringe hate site before you have to return to reality.
I bring numbers and you bring hopey change drivel.
No wonder you can’t see the train coming. I can’t for the life of me imagine where you actually find joy. You prefer to ridicule people whose positions are different than yours and bring them no argument that is cogent or coherent by way of “converting” them. You took you Bush hatred and moved it to Hillary and now shuffle it off to McCain. What would you have in a perfect world? Some to hate all of the time. It must truly suck to be you. Fortunately, I won’t ever find out.
Uh, I responded directly to your numbers; I do not see how a single statistic of yours points to an Obama loss. I also responded with a raft of general trends which all augur well for the Democratic Party in November, most notably all the most recent elections from Nov. 06 onward, which were Democratic blowouts. The party ID number is particularly striking: for several decades, the electorate was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with a small Independent center. This held straight through ‘04. Suddenly in ‘06, we saw a flood — nearly 5% change — from Republicans to Democrats, almost certainly because of the Iraq meltdown and the horror of Katrina and New Orleans. And since then, the GOP hasn’t won a single damn election. We’ve also seen a huge growth in the ranks of Independents, who universally favor Obama over every other candidate. We’ve also seen considerable growth in the Latino portion of the electorate; it is now clear that, although Latinos preferred Hillary to Obama, they prefer Obama to McCain, and by a wide margin. Due to the Millennial baby boom, there are also far more under-30 voters this fall than there have ever been before, or at least since the Sixties. And these voters, too, are a dead lock to favor Obama over McCain. And then there is the economy — we are headed into, or already in, what may be a sharp recession. You go find me the last incumbent party to win the presidency in the middle of a recession. You go find that election. Take your time.
Now, Beebop, you can choose to characterize all these facts as “hopey change drivel.” That’s your prerogative; that doesn’t mean your characterization makes any sense. I can assure you that political and media professionals (of which, I might as well say, I am one) understand that what I am talking about is facts on the ground; it’s why everyone — and I mean *everyone* — in the political world is making their plans based on a Democratic blowout this autumn. That’s everyone from Congressmen (a LOT of Republicans have retired rather than bother running this fall) to lobbyists and corporate donors, who have shifted a lot of money from the GOP to the Democrats, and everyone in between.
You PUMA people, honestly, are a fucking joke. Your numbers are utterly miniscule — not even a rounding error in national electoral calculus — the traffic numbers on your network of sites are not growing (yes, we are watching, just in case, and they aren’t; NQ peaked right when Larry was promising a whitey tape and dropped way back down after the tape failed to surface). The vast majority of HRC voters will wind up voting Democrat this fall, for the simple reason that, hello, they’re Democrats. Unlike you hate site clowns.
And while I’m the subject of hate: one thing you are right about is that I hate Bush. That asshole is well worth hating; he belongs in a fucking military prison for war crimes. But I do not hate Hillary, not at all. I voted for her in the primary (thus my screen name), absolutely LOVED her husband’s presidency, which I consider the most effective presidency of my lifetime, and I’m quite sure that HRC would make an excellent president as well, if she ever got the chance. McCain — well, I wouldn’t say I hate him. But I do think it’s quite clear that he represents a continuation of any number of terrifying, anti-democratic Bush era trends, and I think it’s vitally important that he not become president.
read this and try to sound more intelligent than the MIT, Harvard scientist and his Princetonian colleagues…
and please remember this was written BEFORE Obama sold out the left-est wing!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Well, I take stuff like this seriously, but this methodology is only valuable to the extent that it’s very current. He has Ohio, Michigan and Florida in McCain’s column, for instance; in the month since this article was written, a number of polls have shown Obama ahead in all three states. He wrote that piece at the very end of May, which was a tough month for Obama that saw his numbers as low as they’ve been all year.
we shall see
yeah, well, we are already seeing. As I said above: this guy’s methodology is only meaningful for the most recent numbers, so a month old article is of minimal interest. And Obama’s numbers the past few weeks are very scary for McCain supporters. Or do you think McCain just fired his campaign manager and transformed his entire campaign’s structure (abandoning the “11 Regional Directors” plan that was supposed to win it for him) because he disagrees with my assessment. Or do you think McCain is pouring money into Virginia (a red state that is shifting blue) because he disagrees with my assessment?
Come on, man. Even a minimal amount of dispassionate research makes quite clear that I am correct, at least for now. Start frequenting fivethirtyeight.com if you want really good, even-handed electoral analysis. Poblano is outstanding — maybe the most respected polling analyst in the country today — and he has (based entirely on everyone else’s polls and sheer math, not on his personal views at all) Obama comfortably ahead in the electoral college today.
Again: this doesn’t mean he is guaranteed anything in November. But it does mean that he is winning now, and thus favored to win in November. And it means that all the crap I’m reading here about what Democrats supposedly think is nonsense: the polls are the polls. The math is the math. When McCain pulls ahead of Obama in Ohio, or CT, or Michigan, or PA, or Colorado, I’ll start to worry. since Obama is ahead, on average, in all of those states, I see no reason to expect anything other than a Democratic victory.
Talk about wading in waters! sf- if you don’t know the steps, you shouldn’t try to dance. It’s the math dummy. All your numbers and your polls show is that Nobama can run up the popular vote totals, but he can not change the map. He can not make red states blue- I laugh my ass off when I hear talking pundits say NObama can change red states to blue. Ha! in whose dream world. You keep looking a that Kerry map because it shows you how Nobama will LOSE. It is not changing much except for FLA and VA- and guess what? Fla going to McCain this time yields even more EC votes. Its the math dummy.
You are wrong. In fact, you are so overwhelmingly wrong I almost wonder whether there is any point in trying to educate you. Let me try, really quickly: as of this week, in aggregate polling, Obama is leading McCain in (just to list some of the more interesting swing states) Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Montana, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, even a couple Florida polls. Start reading fivethirtyeight.com if you want to learn something about how political professionals assess aggregate electoral analysis in an election year. Another anecdotal moment from today’s papers: McCain just made a major ad buy in freaking VIRGINIA. Do you have any idea how frightened his electoral analysts must be if they are buying major TV ad time in Virginia in July?!?!?! Do you understand even the slightest bit what these sorts of signs mean? I don’t think you do, that’s why I have to keep on explaining this stuff over and over.
And then there’s the fact that he just fired Rick Davis, his campaign manager, who in turn had been brought in after an earlier round of campaign leaders were fired last year. It is now July, a month before the conventions. Obama’s campaign is firing on all cylinders and gearing up in all 50 states; McCain’s is floundering and still trying to come up with organized executive leadership.
Let me be blunt: McCain is losing this election right now. That doesn’t mean he is a lock to lose in November. But he is losing today, and the electoral trends are very ominous, for McCain and for Republicans in general. If you do not understand that this is true, and why it is true, you aren’t a relevant commentator. Period.
OMG LOLOL You crack me up sf. You are trying to educate me? Obama is going to LOSE and he will LOSE with almost the same map Kerry lost with in 2004 and Gore lost with in 2000. I have been thru more elections than you. The middle decides the election. Nobama can’t win without the middle BUT he can’t attract the middle. It’s over. It’s the math dummy. Even he knows it’s over- why do you think he is pandering to evangelicals? Throwing FISA, gun control, and the death penalty off the bus? He’s done the math.
You respond to all the detailed analysis in the world with “the middle”? That’s your analysis? “The middle?” Obama defeats McCain something like 60-40 among self-described Independents, but you say “he can’t attract the middle” and expect anyone to take you seriously? You ignore the fact that Obama is ahead of McCain in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado and Pennsylvania today — classic swing states with tons of “middle voters — and expect anyone to take your thoughts seriously?
News flash: Obama defeats McCain EASILY among “the middle” today, and unless something changes drastically over the next few months, he is going to defeat him easily among “the middle” in November.
OMG you crack me up! You are so naive. You are going to be so disappointed come November. If you think opinion polls in June- no matter how valid- are an indicator of voter actions in November, you are laboring under false pretenses. Research US voter behavior trends then come back and have a logical discussion with me.
Well, apparently, the majority of them voted for Hillary Clinton, since she won the majority of Dem votes, you nitwit.
No she didn’t. Only a serious HRC KoolAid drinker can say that with a straight face; you have to make all sorts of demented assumptions to claim the popular vote victory (like, zero Obama votes in Michigan, and not counting the caucus states that he dominated, etc). The reality is, they were both exceedingly strong candidates who ran very strong campaigns and wound up roughly tied in the popular vote. Obama won the nomination because a) his overall primary strategy delivered more delegates — HRC’s decision to ignore the caucus states pretty much cost her the presidency, in my view — and b) because the primaries overall convinced the super-delegates that Obama was the stronger candidate in the fall.
As for turnout: there’s no question that HRC was a strong, popular candidate who delivered many millions of votes (including mine), and I’m sure she drove a lot of registration, too. But Obama’s campaign *focused* on registration, from the beginning, and continues to do so to this day, with truly historical levels of success.
As we will all see on November 4th, when the last gasp of the Reagan Revolution is swept away and a new progressive era of U.S. politics begins.
One of my coworkers in Pa. changed his registration from Independent to Democratic so that he could vote for Hillary.
what is your point?
Of course they’re Republicans. HRC support is just a fig leaf for most of these people. Look below they are reprinting McCain’s famous letter to Obama.
BTW, just for you PUMAs’ edification: in the real world, that letter is considered by most Senators to be just the latest proof of McCain’s shocking temper, lack of decorum and emotional problems.
I love that letter. He put the little pisher in his place. About time someone had the balls to say it to Barky’s face. Not push some surrogate out in front to take the heat so Barky can come off smelling less stinky. God I hate cowards.
He didn’t say it to Obama’s face — he said it in a letter which he simultaneously released to the fucking press in a lame-ass, transparently political hissy-fit of exactly the type that has led most of the Senate to hate his guts. Seriously — if you gave a shit, you would see that even many of his Republican colleagues hae spoken publicly about the guy’s emotional problems. McCain is a low-IQ clown with serious anger issues. No wonder you people like him.
With all this from you, Sh*t, F**k, etc, and Maccain’s the one with temper? What’s your IQ by the way? It’s over 140? if not, you have no right to bring that up.
Shocking temper? Pointing out what the MSM and even the far-left blogs have just started noticing - that Obama’s word is worthless? That he changes his position to suit the audience? That he changes his positions on core issues? That he is a bald-face liar and takes credit for things he’s never done? That he plays the race card constantly to divert attention from his own failings? I’ve worked with politicians and on many campaigns - that was a very classy rebuke of a bald-faced liar.
Versus using his former policies for toilet paper which strikes those not hoping to hop on the ochangealot gravy train as politics as usual … with Chicago barbecue sauce. Somewhere there is going to be a charge of racism in my future, I am sure.
No charge of racism from me, but I will charge you with cowardice for not responding to my lengthy post about electoral factors above, after you insulted me and accused me of not dealing in facts.
Now would probably be a good time for you to leave the room for a bit an cry.
Obama, the glory-hog, who never wants to do the work, but is always there to claim the credit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706_pf.html
Yes Billy, Victor David Hanson is a source. You see, we like to hear all sides of the story, not just be spoon fed the pro uhhbama drivel that spews from the msm. Who should our sources be? Ariana? Chris Matthews? Why don’t you go watch Spongebob honey, the grown-ups are talking.
Oh, this is rich; Hanson is a “source.” Sweetie, he’s a right-wing hack, just like everyone else you people quote here. Anyone in the mainstream media who writes anything you don’t like you either ignore or just decide they are sold-out Obamabots (like the comments about Rolling Stone, above, just one of many dozens of examples0. You can read what you want, quote what you want, and ignores what you want — it’s still a sort of free country, though less so than before Bush — but don’t flatter yourselves that you’re some sort of intellectual researchers. You aren’t. You’re a fringe hate site that’s addicted to anti-Obama Kool-Aid, and everyone in the grown-up political world (where Obama is winning this race, and McCain’s campaign is floundering, and still replacing top managers) is laughing at you.
sfhillary,
As a standard quantification of your arrogant, almost intellectual ilk, you commit the basic fallacy of generalizing from the particular. You say, “but don’t flater yourselves that you’re some sort of intellectual researchers. You aren’t.”
As a doctoral student, I am an intellectual researcher with a CV that includes referreed publications and refereed and invited conference presentations.
Further, in standard brownshirt fashion, you come here and spew your venom and deludedly perceive all of those who disagree with your perspective as hate site members, whereas you hypocritically see yourself as some sort of truth and goodness chevalier.
It is true that you sometimes provide evidence and argument. It is true that some commentators spew hate. The only difference between you and them is the target you seek as is in evidence for all to see who read through this site. Your gob festers with bile.
It is also true that people can have excellent moral reasons for rejecting Senator Obama’s presidential run and that these reasons have been clearly and cogently argued by the citizens who frequent this site. Also, some posts here are fringe and suspect. That is to be expected because democracy in practise is messy. It even allows for intellectually o.k., arrogant, self-appointed judge, jury, and execution types, like you, to spew your invective. At least we don’t have the aim of thwarting other peoples expressions of free speech by polluting their site.
Steven
Well, thanks for an intelligent response. I’m not sure why you would characterize me as “spewing venom;” I don’t spew venom at anyone, except sometimes to characterize the arguments of PUMAs as silly, ignorant, false and self-defeating. Which they often are. “Spewing venom” is, well, much of what we read here about Obama, who is, over and over and over, cursed at, called the worst possible names, slandered with unproven accusations, and so on. If you’re as well-read and articulate as you sound, you know that there’s a large degree of truth to what I’m saying. NQ is not a typical political site. It is a site that is 100%, wholly devoted to being *against* a specific candidate, in the most personal possible terms. There is practically no discussion of issues or policy or ideology here; it is all smears, personal innuendo, guilt by association with others — the lowest form of political discourse, and masquerading under the high-minded banner of “character.”
I also don’t see how I’m thwarting anyone’s free expression. If anything I’m encouraging it by repeatedly spending lots of time on a site where mine is so obviously the minority opinion.
I’d also challenge you justify the use of the phrase “spewing your invective” at me. I am, on average, far more polite and reasoned than many posters here. Every time I choose to come on one of these threads, I do dso knowing that half the respondents will just curse me, tell me to leave, tell me how stupid I am, etc.
As for my comment about research: very few posters here who write anything about topics that require real research — like polling or demographics or the like — have any relevant sourcing to back up their (generally misguided and incorrect) assertions. My specific comment was directed at someone who wrote that reading Victor Hanson, of all people, constituted “research.” Please. A site that was genuinely interested in the truth and serious research would not automatically dismiss any writer, article, poll, media pundit, or electoral result that didn’t favor their predisposition. About 99% of the posters on this site do. Don’t expect me to grant them all any intellectual respect just because you’re getting your PhD (for which I admire you, btw; I barely managed my MA and had to abandon my PhD dreams due to lack of discipline).
I’ll call your Masters of Art and raise you two Master’s of Science.
Dear sfhillary,
Here are some examples of your “rapier wit.” I understand that some are responses to others.
“Good to know you guys are keeping your focus on the important issues: finding as many scary black people as possible to associate Obama with! Eyes on the prize, and all that…”
“(stop me if I’m not writing with sufficient intelligence for you), and in fact (that’s in reality, I mean, not in your fantasy world) In your happy little delusion land, Obama is in trouble. ”
“You are living in a dream world. Seriously. You haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about this year. ”
“Don’t wade into waters you do not understand, beebop.”
“But hey, you continue to delude yourselves that Obama is “toast,” “unelectable,” “cannot win.” You have a few more months to have fun with your cute little fringe hate site before you have to return to reality.”
“You PUMA people, honestly, are a fucking joke. Your numbers are utterly miniscule — not even a rounding error in national electoral calculus — the traffic numbers on your network of sites are not growing (yes, we are watching, just in case, and they aren’t; NQ peaked right when Larry was promising a whitey tape and dropped way back down after the tape failed to surface). The vast majority of HRC voters will wind up voting Democrat this fall, for the simple reason that, hello, they’re Democrats. Unlike you hate site clowns”
As to your effect on free speech, please consider that many of the people that post here were driven off Democrat blogs for nothing more than differing from a pro-Obama perspective. It is hardly surprising that they feel hostile to people that come in here using the same tactics that conquered their earlier homes. I have experienced it first hand. Analytic posts containing no ad hominem, racist, sexist, or homophobic commentary were removed because they did not agree with the Obama party line.
Furthermore, locales that offered refuge were then flooded with the now f(l)amed Obamabots, such as happened in this thread today from you, though your commentary is less insulting or extreme. This ties into my point about the assault on freedom of speech. By flooding/polluting refuge blogs, or getting them shut down, Obamabots inhibit freedom of association by crashing the party.
In this regard, Democratic sites were sanitized of discourse so they could provide Obamaesque meditative drones. Fine. We want our drones as well, but Obama supporters craving the rough and tumble discourse that their sites disallow feel the need to harass us.
Finally, we would both be foolish if we thought that the more egregious posts were not the work of black ops people employed/motivated by those that want to discredit this blog.
Yours,
Steven
If you can use Matt Drudge as a source, we can use Republicans.
Ah yes. The authoritarian leftists don’t allow us to read, let alone quote, any source but those that they approve of.
When do you think BO will order the book burnings?
His thugs invade our blogs, shut down our websites, cheat for votes, steal the nomination, corrupt our party and he associates with crooks.
Democracy, Chicago style. Change we can do without.
“Allow?” What the hell are you talking about? You’re slipping into delusion again, Susan. If what you’re trying to say is that Democrats don’t approve of quoting Republican sources to tar a Democratic candidate while calling yourself a Democrat, then yes, we don’t approve. You’re all Republicans now, you’re supporting a Republican candidate, you stand for Republican values, and you’re working to saddle America with a Republican Supreme Court for the next couple decades. OWN IT.
sfhillary if Sen McCain is so bad why did John
Kerry beg him to be his Vice Pressident? it is
so sad when John Kerry said on Meet the Press
that John McCain didn’t have what it took to be our President, but in 20004 he begged him to be his Vice President, and while all the swift boating was going on, guess who came out and defended John Kerry–one man who is loyal-John McCain! I have been a life long Democrat,but
will be voting for a man who has honor, and cares for this country, and that will be John McCain or if Hillary can get the nomination her.
That is false. The best reports are that McCain was so loathed in the Republican Party that he dropped hints to Kerry that he was interested in being his VP; Kerry was not interested.
Of course you PUMAs will spread the myth that Kerry asked McCain, because you are Republicans, so of course you will promote the fraudulent Republican version of this history.
And there is only one National Athem!! ONE
and that is The Star Spangled Banner!
How disrespectful this person was. She could’ve at least sang hers and then OURS The United States of America’s national Athem!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html
It was fashionable to support Obama. He was the newest craze. As he became the presumed nominee he is not so new and different. It is like having the newest Ipod. It is an old Ipod in 3 weeks. Marketing is all there is to this election cycle. McCain is an 8 track.
McCain is a 78 rpm vinyl record..
Or a player piano roll.
Audiophiles prefer analog.
Yup…with old tube amps and vintage speakers.
If they only knew….
The two people behind Obama- Soros and Brzezinski are the ones that really need to be investigated. Remember how bad the neocons on the right are? These guys are the extreme left neocons and up to no good.
We call them neolibs, and sfhillary and Billy are two of them. Out of touch with the real people of this country. Race-baiting, hate-mongering elitist whose idea of discourse is name calling.
They’d probably vote for Hugo Chavez if they could.
Honored though I am to be mentioned on your honor roll, I challenge you to show me any single post of mine that constituted race baiting. The assertion that Soros is an extreme leftist is laughable to anyone who knows anything about him; he is an uber-capitalist globalization internationalist. As for me, I’m a pro-free trade moderate libertarian; it’s one of the reasons I was such a strong supporter of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Elitist? I have no idea what the word means. Hate mongering? Well, I’ve never seen a website more universally devoted to hating another human being to the exclusion of all other content, so I can’t imagine how you could possibly accuse anyone else of that with a straight face.
But…Soros as an extreme leftist. That’s a good one.
Wow, one comment about Victor Davis Hanson and I’m suddenly the devil incarnate. Who knew I wielded so much power?
As the intrepid sfhillary keeps trying to point out, almost every anti-Obama link in this zoo is from a non-Democratic perspective. It makes it hard to believe that you’re not on the McCain team.