Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditOf course the unity event in Unity came off without a hitch.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were destined to stand together on stage in a battleground state where one of them would be endorsing the other. Early on, the betting was that Obama would be doing the endorsing. Then it became clear -- even if it took time for her to accept the fact -- that Clinton would be the one speaking first on the day when it came time to let bygones be bygones.
No one who followed the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination seriously -- a sub-group that, unfortunately, excludes virtually the entire broadcast and cable press corps -- could have been surprised that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have gracefully pulled off two days of joint campaign appearances.
People forget that, back in November, 2006, before this race even got started, MSNBC political commentator Tom Curry headlined an assessment of the candidates: "Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?"
As Curry noted then, there was "a remarkable concurrence" between the contenders.
Obama and Clinton come from the same rigidly pragmatic and consistently cautious wing of the Democratic party. For the most part, they got along well with one another during the long campaign for a nomination that each coveted for their own reasons -- as opposed to a desire to deny it to the other, or to advance an agenda. They spoke regularly on their mobile phones, complimented one another in debates and dialed down disputes with carefully chosen statements that were constructed to press the "pause" button on media-generated "controversies." They distanced themselves from troubling surrogates and denied the hotter heads on their respective campaign teams permission to "go nuclear."
While Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe blew up now and again, and while some of Obama's backers may have gone overboard at times, the candidates themselves never allowed tensions on the trail to get anywhere near as intense as what developed between George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey in 1972, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole in 1988, George H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan in 1992, George W. Bush and John McCain in 2000 or John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008.
This year's Democratic race may have looked edgy. But that was because the talking heads needed something to talk about in front of the cameras that never shut off. The truth is that the Obama-Clinton contest was a throwback to the cozy, insider competitions of old between eyes-on-the-prize pols like Earl Warren and Tom Dewey for the 1948 Republican nod or John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in the 1960 Democratic primaries.
In other words, the notion that Obama and Clinton were in a battle to the death was always a theatrical rather than a realistic one. It helped to keep the troops energized during what was, for all practical purposes, a non-ideological exercise in political positioning. The drama was in the fact that a nominee would make history -- either as the first person of color or the first woman to lead a national party ticket. The drama was not in the fact of particular differences on principle.
It was always the case that one candidate would win and the other would lose. And it was always the case that, when this happened, the two of them would follow the traditional pattern of merging their big-donor lists, plotting a joint convention and fall campaign strategy and appearing together at stage-managed events like Friday's photo opportunity in the aptly-named New Hampshire community of Unity.
It was a perfectly stage-managed event. Obama's tie even matched Clinton's pantsuit. (Both chose "blue." Get it?) Obama spoke of his former foe's "grace and aplomb." Clinton spoke about "when" Obama is president. And, of course, she observed that, "Senator McCain and President Bush are like two sides of the same coin that doesn't add up to a whole lot of change."
What she did not say, but what is certainly true, is that the senator from New York and the senator from Illinois are, themselves, two sides of the same coin.
Of course, their joint appearances will renew speculation about whether Democrats might want to bet that coin on an Obama-Clinton "dream ticket." That's an unlikely prospect because everyone recognizes that it would be difficult to find a place for the increasingly-difficult Bill Clinton in or around an Obama White House. But if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did resolve to form a ticket, the personal dynamics between them would be fine. They are, after all, what they have always been: relatively conventional politicians who share that "remarkable concurrence."
Convention News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
If there ever were a picture of a system in which two proportedly opposing elements were fraudulently cast as alternatives, the only one that would trump this so-called "unity" event would be the general election itself in which Republican and Democratic Parties are portrayed as representing a choice. Anyone still anesthetized enough not to perceive the role of "opposition party" in American "democracy" as a kind of black hole into which outrage is simply sucked and regurgitated out into some parallel universe is, themselves, the problem. Obama is Hillery, and together in "unity" they are McCain and McCain is them. Progressives should refuse to participate in this lie. Progressives should support Ralph Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 11:06am
Dick Morris -- TheHill.com -- 8 May, 2008
'If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. ... Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can't stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama's ability to get elected....'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/27/2008 @ 11:20am
HonestLiberal
Morris has about as much credibility as you do. zilch
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2008 @ 11:26am
Can it be only a couple of months ago that we were hearing HRC say that Obama isn't ready to be CIC?
Can it be only a couple of months ago that we were hearing Obama say that HRC represented the politics of the past and what is wrong with Washington?
I guess they were both mistaken? or just liars and politicians who will say anything (as Metteyya carefully tells us Barak must do to win the presidency)?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 11:33am
'..."There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."..."He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."...' -- Rocky Mountain News -- 25 June, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/27/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/27/2008 @ 11:45am
Yes, suh, yes, suh, whether its at AIPAC about Iran, or concerning the FISA obscenity, or about the death penalty, stephin fetchit just ain't gonna give maasa the jitters, is he. And he won't when he's President - which now seems inevitable - either. This phoney is someone to fear, not someone to trust. No sooner does he tie down the nomination than he starts sounding like all of the other Nazis. Progressive need to turn mother's picture to the wall and vote for Nader. Enough, already.
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 12:12pm
I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead.
Nader hasn't been vocal on these issues either, which leaves him a hypocrite.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2008 @ 12:13pm
unlike Nader, Obama spent years as a community organizer, at which time I can only presume he focused on on these issues.
Nader has reached the stage of self parody.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2008 @ 12:14pm
No sooner does he tie down the nomination than he starts sounding like all of the other Nazis.
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 12:12pm
You are a fraud. Your credibility just went to zero.
Flush.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/27/2008 @ 12:18pm
Of course Clinton is playing along, finally. The real issue is: "What about her sore loser worshippers?"
An unknown (an probably smaller rather than larger) number of her supporters have decided to throw a screaming temper tantrum over their loss. These sore losers can be spotted at places like www.noquarterusa.net where they don't seem to have acknowledged that Clinton has endorsed Obama and that the world is trying to move on.
What is going to be done about these people? They're obnoxious (frequently), childish (almost universally), and potentially relevant in swing states where they will apparently attempt to deliberately throw the election to McCain out of pique at their loss. While, personally, I believe it should be legal to drag these weenies behind a pickup from the trailer hitch, that isn't going to help us deal with them. So what is to be done about Hillary's Weenie Sore Losers?
Posted by Zero at 06/27/2008 @ 1:25pm
duBois: attempting to downplay Nader's record of achievement by mentioning that he wasn't a "community organizer" (as was Obama, to his credit) without mentioning that, you know, OSHA, the EPA, the FOIA, and numerous other major progressive achievements really stemmed from Nader's work, is a pretty silly thing for you to do.
Posted by Zero at 06/27/2008 @ 1:27pm
<i>I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead.
Nader hasn't been vocal on these issues either, which leaves him a hypocrite.</i> - duBois
Nader has been an enormously vocal opponent of these issues for quite some time, and if you took the time to become aware of how much he has actually written, said, and attempted to change on those issues, you could begin to see how wrong you are. It is only easy for you to say "Nader hasn't been vocal on these issues ..." because quite frankly you don't know anything about Nader nor have you tried to pay attention to his work. You should try to learn something before making these sorts of claims.
Posted by Zero at 06/27/2008 @ 1:29pm
Billary is only playing nice until the last check from the Obama camp comes in. I think paying off Hillary's campaign debts is a hugh mistake and it will cost Obama big time. And even a blind man can see what's happening.
Hitlery and Bill are already sharpening those knives so they can stab Obama in the back. She has him over a barrel, because Obama knows her base is much larger than his and he can't win without them.
Posted by ACook at 06/27/2008 @ 1:51pm
>>>This phoney is someone to fear, not someone to trust. No sooner does he tie down the nomination than he starts sounding like all of the other Nazis. Progressive need to turn mother's picture to the wall and vote for Nader. Enough, already.
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 12:12pm<<<
PAID FOR BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND KARL ROVE APPROVES THIS MESSAGE!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 2:25pm
ACook: I do find it particularly creepy, the way that (apparently, I could be wrong) she is insisting that he not only pay off her campaigns debts to all sorts of parties, but, specifically, pays her "loan" to herself back. In other words, the fabulously wealthy Hillary Clinton put 10 million bucks into her own campaign to keep it on life support a couple months longer, and now she expects to be given that money back, if not by general public donors, then by Obama's campaign.
It's kind of a "deadbeat" thing to do - put an overwhelming amount of your own money into an effort that is supposed to be financed by lots and lots of dollars, after your campaign has gone broke for lack of enthusiasm amongst enough donors big and small, and then expect to be given that money back after your personal gamble on your own success doesn't work out the way you were hoping.
Posted by Zero at 06/27/2008 @ 2:46pm
Posted by Benchrest at 06/27/2008 @ 12:18pm
"You are a fraud. Your credibility just went to zero.
Flush."
And here I'd so counted on your good opinion ...
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 3:04pm
I watched the whole thing and thought they both did a great job. Then again, what would you expect--they are both world-class politicians or they wouldn't be there.
One quibble I have with John's otherwise fine piece: his use of the term "conventional politician" to describe O and H. As Hillary pointed out, there is nothing conventional about having a Democrat as President--there have only been three in the last fourty years. Plus, while both O and H are "cautious", they are clearly from the progressive wing of the liberal party in terms of domestic policy and most foreign policy. They both want to provide for those less able and believe that we, the richest nation in the history of the world(if we don't blow it!) can afford to do that. There really hasn't been a Presidential theme since FDR--that we can do major things as a nation to provide more security, comfort, and opportunity to the people of this nation, other nations, and the world.
Posted by sabatia at 06/27/2008 @ 3:13pm
"Senator McCain and President Bush are like two sides of the same coin that doesn't add up to a whole lot of change."
So....now....officially...
either Hillary is lying or not a patriot or FRANKGRITS believes she has bad judgement.
No third option available to ol' FRANK.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 12:12pm
Real Nader cultist or GOP poser....irrelevant regardless.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 2:25pm
I know you, don't I? Aren't you the typical system supporting filth that always shows up to kvetch when light gets shined on the bacteria that pollute our public life? Why don't you find a way back under the rock from which you slithered.
Posted by john lowell at 06/27/2008 @ 4:23pm
I only saw a little clip, but felt there was a little awkwardness in the body language, with Barrack more poised and warm and Hillary a bit perfunctory.
If I am correct, this actually suggests to me Hillary's coming around. Finding a way to work with Obama, going forward. Perhaps she's achieved some major promises from him. Don't think it's VP. But, whew... there is a scenario. And could follow this script. No announcements. Lots of others vetted, semi-publicly. Then lo and behold BHO and HRC are increasingly presented as a very strong team...
Posted by winyahn at 06/27/2008 @ 5:12pm
In other words, her slight discomfort may result from that her beginning efforts at adapting her insatiable narcissistic power drive to the changing conditions!
Posted by winyahn at 06/27/2008 @ 5:18pm
By now everyone should understand what Obama does perfectly well. He cannot defeat John Mccain without Hillary's supporters. Hillary can have whatever she wants except for the VP slot. I don't think she wants it anyway.
She's sitting pretty right now. She probably will not have any debt because the word is out. Obama needs Hillary and he has to pay the price. That price is wiping out ALL of her campaign debt, a prominent speaking slot for both her and Bill at the convention and a promise that HER health care bill will be the one signed into law. That's just for starters.
Obama doesn't have the votes to win the swing states. The blacks and the youth vote won't put him over the top. Women can. When Obama supporters yell 'Yes we can', the army of Hillary's female supporters are saying, If we let you'. That's where Hillary comes in.
Personally, I think Hillary can make nice all she wants. When her supporters close the curtain in the voting booth, they'll be pulling the lever or punching the hole for McCain and laughing about it while they do it. I know I'll be.
Get Mccain elected is the plan for her supporters. Hillary gets her debt wiped out, gets her respect at the convention and then runs against Mccain in 2012. You got to admire her political genius. She learned from the best. She got blindsided from obama's campaign and her stratgists made some serious miscalculations. They all learned a valuable lesson. It will help in 2012.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/27/2008 @ 8:07pm
By now everyone should understand what Obama does perfectly well. He cannot defeat John Mccain without Hillary's supporters. Hillary can have whatever she wants except for the VP slot. I don't think she wants it anyway.
She's sitting pretty right now. She probably will not have any debt because the word is out. Obama needs Hillary and he has to pay the price. That price is wiping out ALL of her campaign debt, a prominent speaking slot for both her and Bill at the convention and a promise that HER health care bill will be the one signed into law. That's just for starters.
Obama doesn't have the votes to win the swing states. The blacks and the youth vote won't put him over the top. Women can. When Obama supporters yell 'Yes we can', the army of Hillary's female supporters are saying, If we let you'. That's where Hillary comes in.
Personally, I think Hillary can make nice all she wants. When her supporters close the curtain in the voting booth, they'll be pulling the lever or punching the hole for McCain and laughing about it while they do it. I know I'll be.
Get Mccain elected is the plan for her supporters. Hillary gets her debt wiped out, gets her respect at the convention and then runs against Mccain in 2012. You got to admire her political genius. She learned from the best. She got blindsided from obama's campaign and her stratgists made some serious miscalculations. They all learned a valuable lesson. It will help in 2012.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/27/2008 @ 8:49pm
If in his 1st 100 days Obama closes the prisons that make this possible at home & abroad, he'll have made a great mark. If he fails to, we can expect not much more (& after a couple years, rather less) than a nice show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/opinion/28herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinio n&oref=slogin
Posted by sloper at 06/27/2008 @ 11:27pm
PS: The time stamps seem to be off by about 4 hrs.
Posted by sloper at 06/27/2008 @ 11:30pm
and now obama has to come in and kiss her ass and help pay for her campaign...
what's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 08:24am
Get Mccain elected is the plan for her supporters. Hillary gets her debt wiped out, gets her respect at the convention and then runs against Mccain in 2012. You got to admire her political genius. She learned from the best. She got blindsided from obama's campaign and her stratgists made some serious miscalculations. They all learned a valuable lesson. It will help in 2012.-----Posted by frankgrits at 06/27/2008 @ 8:49pm
FRANK just admitted that he's been lying about why he's voting for McCain. It is NOT about McCain being more qualified.
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2008 @ 08:25am
Late yesterday, Drudge began showcasing a picture on his site of Obama and Hillary kissing and embracing with caption, "Yeah, Right". One gets the impression of two reptiles engaged in pre-copulatory maneuvering, the whole charade premised on the fiction that earlier there had been some difference between the two and that now a kind of coming together was in process. With these two paramecia, there was never a time or a need for coming together. Clinton IS Obama, and Obama IS Clinton. The question is one of ontology as much as it is politics. And together this way the unity they manifest IS John McCain and John McCain Is them. Progressives need to support Nader if, for no other reason, out of a crying need to limit tolerance of difference in presidential campaigns to 35 year olds that show no evidence of having scales.
Posted by john lowell at 06/28/2008 @ 09:09am
"I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead."
Better get your ears checked as Nader has spoken loud, clear, and often on these issues and many more.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/28/2008 @ 09:29am
what every four years?
perhaps you can link.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 09:41am
FrankGrits-It's good of you to finally admit that you Clinton people are cultists who don't care about your country and only care about your cult.The last thing this country needs,of course,is a POTUS who attracts that type of mindless supporter and,hopefully,we have seen the last of Hillary as a possible POTUS.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/28/2008 @ 10:33am
"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as 'black is beautiful, black is powerful.' . . . And they love it. Whites just eat it up." RALPH NADER,
whatta creep.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:48am
no democratic unity for Nader. he's only in it for himself.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:49am
emile dubois: on Nader, he certainly shouldn't have said that, but your attacks on him are still silly. look, you are one of these silly people who mindlessly hates him because you internalized mindless hatred of him from "liberal" media. that's fine, that's your prerogative, but don't try to pretend you have a perspective on a figure you've already demonstrated in previous statements you don't actually know anything about.
grits: hope you enjoy the sight of your son's body coming home in a flag-draped coffin because you're a whiny sore loser who voted for McCain in 2008 because you didn't get the pony you wanted for X-mas (the Hillary nomination). while it's sad to see that you have no connection to any viable moral framework, it's also good to have that in the open so that everyone can see you for what you are, which is, again, a whiny sore loser and a man with some silly character failures, nothing more.
Posted by Zero at 06/28/2008 @ 11:53am
we americans here (including the mighty "progressives") are just SO sheltered and safe. you can hang out at the nation's web site and watch people who claim to be "liberal" and oppose the Iraq war smile happily as they vote for a figure who wants to expand it (McCain) out of some petty grievance they have the universe over the fact that Hillary Clinton didn't get the nomination. Or you can watch people who got all they know about Ralph Nader from Daily Crust "blog" entries trash a figure who was responsible for some of the best institutions we have. In the meantime, actual human lives are lost and destroyed in the countries the US army has attacked and invaded, our domestic regime has become a kleptocracy and the generation of men now in their mid-thirties is the first generation on record to make less in real wages than their fathers at the same age. The wealth of billionaires grows, the mega-yacht industry blossoms, and people with no choice but to work for living work harder and harder for less and less, with fewer vacations and less security and well-being, while babbling on about this- or that- candidate and the Eeeeeeevvvvilll Ralph Nader.
That which cannot continue, won't, and I look forward to some changes in what people are talking about soon enough.
Posted by Zero at 06/28/2008 @ 12:00pm
as they say, youth is wasted on the young, and i suppose the political corollary to this is that democracy is wasted on its beneficiaries, quite frequently, as well ...
the fault in either case? well it's the same: the gift of youth is squandered by people don't understand its value, just as the gift of constitutionally-enshrined civic participation is wasted on people who don't understand the magnitude of the reality that their rulers have to expend hundreds of millions of dollars every two years in an attempt to convince the ruled to agree. others face political power through the barrel of a gun, political power that pervades all aspect of private life.
now, time for a workout. later, alligators -
Posted by Zero at 06/28/2008 @ 12:06pm
Hillary supporters who are planning on voting for McCain are hoping that McCain fails as POTUS and hurts America because they know that McCain has to fail and harm this country in order for Hillary to have a shot at 2012.I cannot think of much that is more horrid than to hope that your country and it's people suffer just so that your candidate can have another shot at POTUS.The last thing that Hillary supporters want is for McCain to be a good POTUS because that would mean a GOP victory in 2012.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/28/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/28/2008 @ 1:20pm
Next time FRANK starts in on his LIE about "how great McCain is"...ask him...
"So, given your admiration of JM....will you vote for his re-election in 2012?"
He either sticks with his "It's to get 2012 for Hillary"...and he's lying about his respect for McCain.
or he lies about his "2012 strategy" above, and claims he would "possibly support McCain".
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2008 @ 1:51pm
"Hillary supporters who are planning on voting for McCain"
i don't think we really know how many these are. I would bet on a very small number. it is incumbent upon Hillary to dissuade these renegades.
she has a few months to do this. by the time of the convention, I think the stragglers will have returned to the fold.
this is being kept alive by McCain supporters, who realizing what a disaster candidate they have, are grasping at straws.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 2:01pm
emile-Most Hillary supporters will come around and those who don't typically live in blue states and their vote for McCain will be a wasted vote.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/28/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by Zero at 06/28/2008 @ 11:53am
In order to make a remark like that to the father of a soldier, any father of any soldier, you have to be a sick, sick fuck. Military people have a name for people like you. it's 'PUKE'.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 5:10pm
McCain is nothing but a third term for Bush.
Americans don't want to invade Iran. Americans don't want a President who will support Israel invading Iran.
Congress is living up to their portrayal on late night TV. (Congress is a joke these days.)
That's why we're voting for Obama.
Posted by ginza00 at 06/28/2008 @ 8:38pm
the congress can be led by the president, as Bush has shown. if Obama inherits a congressional super majority, he will have that opportunity.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 8:50pm
frankgrits, and what name does the military have for the people who intentionally send our sons & daughters to die in a war which shouldn't have been waged?
Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2008 @ 9:07pm
the thing is, frank, I am not the 'sick, sick, fuck'. you are. you are the one who has some pathetic little grievance with the universe because you didn't get your pony for X-mas, and now you are deliberately participating in a (silly) attempt to put a warmongering freak into office out of pique, a warmongering freak who will (and you are quite pleased with it!) see to it your son comes home from Iraq in a flag-draped coffin. you can get angry at me for saying it, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Posted by Zero at 06/28/2008 @ 9:44pm
Military people have a name for people like you. it's 'PUKE'.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 5:10pm
Is that because people, who's loved ones are safe at home now, voting for the hate-mongering freak, so that other people's children can die for no good reason, rather than just admit their racism....make us all want to puke?
....guess, I'm a puke too, then. Because I agree with zero's assesment of your character.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 06/28/2008 @ 10:39pm
grits was a Stalinist from the start. he never recognized rights we hold dear, such as someone else's free speech. I never believed the bit with the son. everything that he's written since then confirms my opinion.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/28/2008 @ 11:13pm
people who fight in, or who administer, or who even merely support, wars like the iraq war have no moral, legal, or philosophical credibility upon which to make rational criticisms against people like myself, zero, etc.
the war is illegal and immoral, and those who support it, from the president on down to the soldiers, are complicit in its crimes. even those poor minorities who obeyed orders.
we all need to face up to that fact.
Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2008 @ 11:16pm
Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2008 @ 9:07pm
Doesn't matter. You don't say something like that to the people who defend your sorry asses or their families. I never could understand that frame of mind.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:28pm
Posted by Zero at 06/28/2008 @ 9:44pm
Zero and all the rest of you immature assholes. I'll tell you this for the last time, not because it's any of your business. I have the right to vote for whomever I please. It's called democracy. I could give a shit less that Hillary lost. I just regret that we lost a great leader.
You people make me embarrassed to be a democrat. I used to hate people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Now I can see why they said the things they did. You people are anti-American cowards. It has nothing to do with the war. It's your hatred for anyone or anything military. You're probably the kind of people who would never fight for their country under any circumstances and would spit in the faces of those brave enough to do so. Fucking cowards. And don't go telling me that any of you served anywhere any time because it will be a lie.
You all deserve to have your fat lazy asses taken over by our enemies. Then you'll all be wimpering around like a bunch of pussies begging for help.
John McCain is the only republican I'd vote for because I know he has what it takes to lead. He's been tested and proven. Barack Obama cannot say the same. He doesn't even know when he's being used.
You should all be very ashamed of yourselves. I don't care how old or young you are. You've got a lot of growing up to do.
In the future, I will not respond to any references to my son's service or my own. Puke is too good a word for you worthless forms of life.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:40pm
There's your unity.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:40pm
Remember, Frank regularly predicted a Clinton victory throughout the primary season. Given that track record, I don't think one needs to take his current prediction that seriously.
The big question is whether Obama wins a close victory in electoral votes or whether it's closer to a 3-2 margin.
Posted by brunowe at 06/28/2008 @ 11:42pm
I could give a shit less that Hillary lost. I just regret that we lost a great leader.
Pure BS. Frank you are a lying, pompous, incompetent, childish blowhard.
Posted by brunowe at 06/28/2008 @ 11:44pm
Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2008 @ 11:16pm
Ok dipshit then lets bring all our soldiers home and execute them for war crimes. Will that make you happy you miserable wretch. You owe me and every family member of every soldier who chose to serve their country and gave their life or their future or just served period. You should all get your Communist asses on the first boat the hell out of my country.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:44pm
Posted by brunowe at 06/28/2008 @ 11:42pm
Go fuck yourself. I could care less who wins this Goddamned election. This country no longer believes in it's heroes. It's all about one upmanship and who can suck the biggest tit.
I'm formally resigning from the democratic party if it moves any further to the left. There will be nothing left worth fighting for.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:47pm
I apologize to Liberty, Marybretbrad, Pontificus, and all the others who really made the most sense afterall, for all the assinine things I said in the past two years. All anyone has to do is take the opposite side for awhile to see how fast people turn on you. Quite an experience.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:50pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:50pm
You are arguing with fringe elements.
Darla's statement "even those poor minorities who obeyed orders" exposes her ignorance.
Zero is a coward. He always has been. He could never make those statements to your face. He has no credibility relative to this subject and his hypocrisy is evident for all to see. Ignore him as he has done so often to others in the past.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/29/2008 @ 12:07am
Posted by Benchrest at 06/29/2008 @ 12:07am
Ah, a voice of reason. I know these people are on the fringe. I used to try to reign them in when they got too far out of line and made the party look so bad. You're right about Zero. If he said that face to face to any father of a soldier who served in combat or just served period, I do think he'd be in a world of hurt. I think this man/woman is a very sick individual and needs to seek some type of counciling for anger control.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/29/2008 @ 12:14am
Posted by frankgrits at 06/29/2008 @ 12:14am
Zero is male, though he is not a man. He could never stand a post, nor is his personality such that he could obey an order. It is alien to such as these and not worthy of your time.
It is enough that you know that there are those who appreciate your service, and your son's service, and who revile the types who disparage the sacrifice they would never make.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/29/2008 @ 12:25am
Obama Undercuts His Brand The Huffington Post
Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of "flip-flopping" from conservatives.
The Times reports:
In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government's wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, he did not complain...
..."I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute...
...And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama's campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.
The changes carry some risk that Obama will diminish the image he has sought to build as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business. McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.
The Post reports that those who should be his strongest supporters are taking this as a wake-up call:
The switch is not without precedent. On a variety of issues, including gun control and campaign finance regulation, the presumptive Democratic nominee has shown himself willing to settle for incremental changes in the face of political reality rather than to hold out for the sweeping and uncompromising positions he initially stakes out.
But even some who should be his core constituents -- in the Democratic Party's progressive wing and the liberal blogosphere -- have taken his recent maneuvers as a wake-up call. They are warning the senator that in his quest to reach voters in the middle of the political spectrum, he risks depressing the enthusiasm of the voters who clinched the nomination for him.
"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book "The Uprising." "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."
Posted by frankgrits at 06/29/2008 @ 12:29am
Thank-you. That's a good note to say goodnight on. Later.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/29/2008 @ 12:30am
Oh, and he doesn't use the name Zero for nothing.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/29/2008 @ 12:31am
"Go fuck yourself. I could care less who wins this Goddamned election. This country no longer believes in it's heroes. It's all about one upmanship and who can suck the biggest tit.
I'm formally resigning from the democratic party if it moves any further to the left. There will be nothing left worth fighting for."
More lies FG. It's just been one hissy fit after another since the Clinton campaign didn't lock up the election.
Posted by brunowe at 06/29/2008 @ 05:48am
For the diehard Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain in November, remember this: If Barack Obama loses in November, a large percentage of African Americans will blame Hillary Clinton for his defeat.
Hillary had a lot of black support initially because many blacks didn't think Obama had a chance. When he showed he could win in Iowa, blacks started voted for him, even though many black leaders supported Hillary.
In 2012, black leaders are going to be far more cautious about supporting Hillary. And while, yes, Obama can't win swing states without Hillary supporters, Hillary can't win the 2012 nomination without African American support.
Bottom line, Hillary is never going to be President of the US. But she has blazed a trail for other women (very soon I hope!) to become President.
Posted by aereuter at 06/29/2008 @ 05:59am
and who revile the types who disparage the sacrifice they would never make.
how'z the reviling going? is that a special skill of yours? can anyone learn it? would you teach it to me? can we all revile together?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/29/2008 @ 09:46am
FrankGrits-You're the one who referred to all republicans as fascists, on numerous occasions,but,now,you are claiming that everyone else is fringe and you tried to reign us in for the good of the party.You aren't taking the opposite side.You want McCain to get elected and fail so that Hillary has a shot in 2012 which means that care more about your cult than you care about any troops,including your own kid, or your country so you can stop your self righteous hypocrisy at any time you choose.And I have no problem saying that to your face,by the way.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 09:48am
I apologize to Liberty, Marybretbrad, Pontificus, and all the others who really made the most sense afterall, for all the assinine things I said in the past two years.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008 @ 11:50pm
The Final Break with sanity....
all over a politician named Hillary!
pathetic
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2008 @ 10:26am
Frankgrits,
You have described perfectly the main reason so many of us on the right are contemptous of those on the left...the fringe left, for they would never stand up for anything involving the military in any way..for it is always the same..and why I am disappearing from this blog.
any military action the US enters, they will always find a reason to blame...the military...and America ....all the way to the point of hurting those who have CHOSEN to serve the rest of us despite possible disagreements with the politicos who order them into harms way...they do this because they love the country, period.
Welcome to a portion of the clubs of those who appreciate the service of ALL in the uniform, especialy those of us who never have sereved in uniform, but grateful those that do and understand the FACT.. it is because of what they do that the rest of us can do what we do...
Thnaks for you service and your sons service in Iraq...for it is valuable and right, and has NOTHING to do with the fact that I disagree with your positions 90% of the time. That is irrelevant when it come to the military service.
You do not have to leave the democratric party, just stay in it and bring it back towards the middle, for it has lost its way, and gone WAY left...and in the next few years we are going to pay a very heavy price for giving the hard left the reigns of power..
for, I heard today, that 44 % (or so)believe Obama supports the SCOTUS decison on guns and 42%(or so) or so believe he does not with the rest not sure...
That ain't leadership..that is fog.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/29/2008 @ 10:35am
jomamma-Frank doesn't care about our troops.He cares about his cult as is quite obvious to all,but the most gullible amongst us.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 10:40am
jiomamma-Frank did not start to support the war until it was obvious that Hillary would lose.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 10:42am
jiomamma-Frank did not start to support the war until it was obvious that Hillary would lose.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 10:42am
I don't see supporting the war, rather he is supporting the military...it is quite a different thing...
but the hard left NEVER supports anything military, and as a result, makes them predictable, which endangers us all.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/29/2008 @ 10:53am
jomamma-Frank isn't supporting the military.He is just having a tantrum because Hillary lost.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 11:04am
how'z the reviling going? is that a special skill of yours? can anyone learn it? would you teach it to me? can we all revile together?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/29/2008 @ 09:46am
I was specific in my statements and never mentioned your name. If you doubt FG's claims of service I have no problem with that. However the two I did mention crossed a ridiculous line, and if I am silent then I am complicit with their sentiment, which I am not.
I had a feeling you were going to gripe me out. I can take it. I won't like it, but I can take it.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/29/2008 @ 1:54pm
We stand up for the military in all the righteous causes of freedom and opposing fascism of this great republic called the United States of America. The last totally legitimate was the 2nd World War. The Kosovo intervention was legitimate because of the racial cleansing. Vietnam was not because if the will of the people is to have their communism, let them have it and return back from that experience 30 years after all broke in their finances.
We cannot support the political decisions for adventures or plain imperialism to secure Irak's oil wealth to American companies or meddling into the internal affairs of other countries. We ought to be the leader of a free world, not Rome. The free world need not be an image of our political system.
Those adventures are puppeted by that well known alliance between big capital and the political-military complex that a great Republican like Eisenhower had the courage to name. We do envision our military as the liberators in the coasts of Normandie, France, and not as the occupators of Iraq.
Who supports more the military? The people that want to take them back home- and therefore protect them of the insane Iraq war, or the ones that want to keep them there 100 years? The people that approve several educational and other benefits for them, or who opposed the benefits as McCain?
You people in the right are so out of touch with the rest of the world it is pathetic. The rest of the world don't want a US empire, a big brother is enough for our might.
Posted by Frank42 at 06/29/2008 @ 2:22pm
Benchrest
I was pulling your leg. a harmless jest, that's all.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/29/2008 @ 3:45pm
libzr-It would be nice if your type of "real" American really did love your country and it's troops,but,sadly,the troops are just cannon fodder to you and America is just a place that you live,but not a place that you particularly care about...
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 4:54pm
libzr-First you claim that you love soldiers and then you tell a American combat veteran to move to Iran and then call that combat veteran a vile name.Your hypocrisy knows no bounds,but your childish response was what was expected.I earned my right to live here and speak freely.Have you?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2008 @ 6:32pm
I apologize to Liberty, Marybretbrad, Pontificus, and all the others who really made the most sense afterall, for all the assinine things I said in the past two years. All anyone has to do is take the opposite side for awhile to see how fast people turn on you. Quite an experience.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008
Accepted Frank. I now see in you the Frank I first met on this website a couple of years ago.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 12:10am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/30/2008 @ 12:10am
The Emperor welcomes Anakin to the world of the Sith!
Posted by Mask at 06/30/2008 @ 07:01am
FrankGrits-The only thing that you have accomplished is to show how truly gullible some on the right are and how easy it is to con and manipulate them.It took you little time to get libzr to call you his friend which explains why he believes everything Ann Coulter says.Good job.I gave some thought to changing my views,too just to play with them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/30/2008 @ 10:59am
Posted by frankgrits at 06/28/2008
Now I know FRANK has lost it.
PONTI is included in those that "make the most sense?"
hahahahahahahahaha
Posted by Hman23 at 07/01/2008 @ 3:45pm