We see your Jay-Z and raise you one Napoleon Dynamite:
Vote for Pedro!
Er, Hillary!
In other news (speculation):
- Chris Bowers thinks the FL and MI delegations will be seated, Florida as is and uncommitted delegates going to Obama in MI. OK, let the baby have his way in MI. He didn’t earn those delegates and he’s actually stealing them from Edwards and the others who weren’t on the ballot. If it had been my druthers, I’d have graciously advocated for a revote in MI, as Hillary did. But Noooo. Barry is not above taking what is not his. And we have to remember that if this report is true, Barry walked back his request for a 50/50 split in MI, which would have been worse for him since presumably, that 5% he would have taken from Hillary represented votes of real people who decided they did not want him. So, Ok, Baby Barry gets unearned delegates. His supporters at OpenLeft are not satisfied. Yep, for them, it’s just a matter of grabbing whatever you can so you can win the game, regardless of the voters. Jeez, these people have no scruples. Their parents should be ashamed. In any case, nothing is confirmed and if they aren’t guaranteed to count just like every delegation, it’s all a bunch of meaningless diversion. Not only that but it will pretty much lose Florida and MI in the fall. What a catastrophe. Lead or get out of the way, Howard.
- The NYTimes in *two* articles saw Hillary attacking Obama. The latest is “Superdelegates Unswayed by Clinton’s Attacks” (but then she picked up 3 uncommitteds Go figure.) and Nagorney wrote, “Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate”. Sometimes, I wonder if we’re watching the same debate. I’ve seen MUCH sharper “attacks” in tenser debates. It appears that words have become redefined and thresholds have been lowered substantially. She was strong and feisty but also on her game and animated. She fairly danced through a challenging debate while he struggled. It takes practice, practice, practice. But her gentle jabs at him were hardly attacks. If that’s the new standard, then Obama is toast against John McCain who isn’t even a great debater but he IS a Republican.
- One more thing: I want to revisit the WWTSBQ? rantings of the Obamasphere. You guys will just not shut up about how impossible for Hillary to win based on delegate counts and that the SDs should respect the will of the people in their states (except Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, etc). Do you guys realize how incredibly out of touch and stupid you sound? Here is the scenario you envision: They’re going to finish the primaries close to dead even with Obama winning only two big states, one of which is expected to go R and all the rest of his wins in sparsely populated R western states and the racially divided R south vs Hillary’s wins in the big electoral college states, swing states, the east, the west, the south, the rust belt. She’s given stellar debate performances and never thumbs her nose at voters. She is going to have a very strong finish. But if she has only a handful fewer pledged delegates, you want Howard Dean to say,
“Well, thanks for that very nice performance, Hillary. We’ve decided to award the contest to the token male because, because, well, we don’t know why exactly but you’re a woman. Surely, you’ve faced disappointment before. Sorry, Sorry, Sorry *rolling eyes*, CA, MA, NY, NJ, PA, IN, KY, WV, AZ, AR, OK, TX, OH, MI and all the rest of you I forgot. That’s our decision, so sue me. BTW, Obama and the DNC could use some cash and this DNC convention soiree we are oblgiated to throw this year doesn’t come cheap. Oh, and Jim and his little group of zealots will be contacting you for your canvassing assignments.”
‘Cos that’s what it’s going to sound like. Do you guys REALLY believe we’re going to let you get away with that? Not. Bloody. Likely.
Filed under: snark | Tagged: napoleon dynamite, vote for Pedro |
The Confluence 
Thank you, riverdaughter! I absolutely love that movie. That is us. We don’t feel the need to be “cool” and conform. We don’t need an idol. All we want is a candidate who has toughness and stick-to-itiveness, and most of all intelligence, knowledge, and competence. Let the boyz try to elect their wimpy candidate without half of the party. I don’t care. If I have to survive John McCain, I’ll manage it somehow. But for now, I’m sticking with Hillary. I still believe she will win.
BB: In this scenario, Obama is the blonde mean girl named Summer. Remember her?
How many in the media commented on Obama’s performance? Right. That’s how bad he was: they dare not mention it.
On Super Tuesday, Hillary racked up California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts among her many other wins, but what did the Proprietor of the Site that Must Not Be Named sing a hymn to? Alaska. Yes, Alaska. Alaska was the victory that made the night Obama’s.
I rehearse that exercise in silliness because it’s just the way the whole thing goes. No matter what her victories and Obama’s defeats, the media and Barry’s other supporters say the day belongs to Barry. The superdelegates are not swayed by Hillary’s arguments, but even so she adds “a new trio of superdelegates to her tally on Friday.”
I saw the most unbelievable editorial today in the LA Times called “Still with Stupid?” arguing that Obama is the “intellectual” we should all be listening to. He loses a debate, but because his books have some dribbled Marxist rhetoric from the 1980s when he was in college and that was fashionable, and because he “parses” things so he can blame others for his problems, he is “complex?” Gimme a break. Here’s the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-daum19apr19,0,684076.column?track=ntothtml. This was written by a woman. I am slackjawed.
A journalist from Guana has to tell me about three superdelegates Hillary got ages back because the US Press did not report it.
What in the hell is going on?
Well, 19,000 Republicans have switched parties to register as Democrats in North Carolina, according to CNN. And guess what, they will be voting for Obama. He asked Republicans to do that in Pennsylvania. His supporters won’t admit this.
You know, I never thought I would see the constitution hijacked the way it was in 2000. Then it kept going. Now I see a Democratic Party making a McGovern mistake when the stakes could not be higher and I am blown away.
The NYT has nothing on the WashPost.
1. Not Bitter but Aware of Losses
(W Pa voters ok w/ Obama’s comments, some point out that Hillary is Rich.)
2. Cooling Toward Clinton
(AA views of HRC in dumpster. Some will never vote for her under any circumstance)
3. Obama Fights on Two Fronts
(Obama bravely battles two enemies)
4. Obama Gets Schooled
(Colbert King on Clinton benefiting from Limbaugh and other Republican allies. (Remember, when Obama does, it’s a Good Thing) They resort to McCarthyism and tar Obama with “uppity.” Obama is compared to famous Marylander, former slave, abolitionist and human rights champion Frederick Douglass.
This one is the works!
5. Obama’s got Jay-Z on his Ipod and the Moves to Prove It.
(Fawning puff piece)
6. Obama Greeted by Largest Crowd of his Campaign
7. Kaine Heads for PA for Obama
This is my local paper. See what I have to put up with?
A GREAT dance! Go Hillary!
NO, even if the report is true, Sen. Obama should NOT get the uncommitted votes. They voted UNcommitted. We have this crazy thing called Democracy in this country. Don’t you think the 50/50 claim was a fake (although he WOULD have taken the votes if he’d gotten them that way!) designed to draw attention away from the fact that he should not get uncommitted voters?
You are excellent, Riverdaughter. And “righteous,” as Jon Heder says in Just Like Heaven.
I’d rather revote Michigan and keep Florida (although open to revoting in Florida too). I don’t really know how to count Michigan’s popular vote number if Michigan is kept as is. Over 600,000 people voted in Michigan, and while that is more than every caucus in the contest, I think more people would have voted had Obama gone along with a revote there.
Actually, the total was a little over 594,000 votes in Michigan – still more than the caucuses.
WS: Well, this is a dilemma of Obama’s and Howard’s making, isn’t it? Splitting Michigan 50/50 isn’t fair. Revoting is virtually out of the question now. But it isn’t fair to the voters who voted uncommitted either, is it? Was there ever a poll in MI before the primary? If so, just split the uncommitteds according to the poll. Or divide them equally among all of the candidates who took their names off the ballot. I’m going with option one because there don’t seem to be a lot of other solutions. Give the majority to Edwards and Obama people and when they meet at their delegate conventions, the Edwards delegates can decide where to go.
riverdaughter–
Yep, Barack is the mean girl. Why is it I see him that way and never as a male bully? I guess it’s because he’s so passive aggressive, it fits with the theme of high school pettiness and popular girl meanness.
I followed somebody’s link in the previous thread and found this ridiculous speech by Obama to Jewish leaders in Philly on Tuesday. Honestly, could he be more arrogant and yet inarticulate at the same time?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/obama-im-a-pretty-darned-good-politician/
“…the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether the recent controversy over Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s retiring pastor, could lead to him being attacked by Republicans in the fall and create the possibility of turning his candidacy into one akin to failed candidates George McGovern and Michael Dukakis.
At the end of a long response, Obama said: “Let me make one last point about the comparison to McGovern and Dukakis, both excellent men, but I’m a pretty darn good politician. And I can give a pretty good speech and I can connect and inspire the American people in ways that I think will become apparent. I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t pretty good at mixing it up. And so much of the attack machine that’s been built up is part of the old politics.”
Obama added that his recent remarks suggesting bitter Americans cling to guns and religion as a way to vent their frustrations with Washington hasn’t upset voters because it’s true.
Link to video of speech:
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/obama-i-am-pretty-darned-good-politician/
I just posted a comment with two links in it and it disappeared. Do I need to rewrite it, or is it in the spam filter?
Oops. It appeared when I click “submit” again…
Well, the Michigan exit poll said:
Clinton: 46%
Obama: 35%
Edwards: 12%
Kucinich: 2%
Richardson: 1%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MIDEM
Still, RCP has a column that includes Michigan but gives Clinton her share but gives Obama 0 votes. Obamabots then discredit the whole contest because of Obama’s 0 votes, and in their mind, that invalidates Hillary’s 328,000 Michigan votes adding to the popular vote count (even though those are the preferences of 328,000 people).
There’s also the Washington caucus and primary. RCP counts the caucus because they base the delegate count on that. Obama would gain over 110,000 votes if they count the caucus but he would only gain about 60,000 votes if you count the primary. The primary had about twice as many people voting compared to the caucus (500,000 vs. 250,000). The delegates are based on the caucuses, but if you only count caucus voters, about 250,000 votes would be thrown away. I don’t know why Washington Dems just copy the Republicans and give a portion to the caucus and another portion to the primary.
WS: OK, I looked at various national polls at the approximately the time the Michigan primary was held. Now, for some strange reason, I can’t find a Michigan primary poll from SUSA which would have been the most reliable. There are plenty from Florida but it looks like it was assumed that MI just wouldn’t be in play.
Anyway, Hillary lead in most of the other polls by about 33% over Obama (roughly averaged). So, if she won 55% outright in MI, then he should have gotten ~37%. That’s about what the spread was in Florida. But there are probably a lot of urban AAs who would have voted for him, (this was before he rolled out the race baiting) so give him maybe another 5%. That would bring him to about 42%. Sounds about right. Except that Edwards had a lot of labor support. Hmmm, so knock that down by about 3%. (I’m just playing with numbers in my head.) So, by MY unofficial RD math, which is even fuzzier than rainforest Algebra, Obama ends up with 39% of MI!
OK, let’s go with that and move on.
BB: You’re comments aren’t in the spam filter or the moderation queue. Maybe the NSA has them. 😉
Looky what I found in the spam filter. (This is actually quite tame compared to some from yesterday.
Hillarious!
Here’s another:
and this one is charming:
Hey, if he doesn’t want my future cure for cancer, no skin off my nose. I think I’ll just go to a corner and drool on myself for awhile.
Oh, and we all hate men. That’s ridiculous. I love men. I’m just picky.
I love it when the trolls bang out the crapola with CAPS! Like angry little children banging the spoon on the high chair. Pay attention to me!!! Anyway, I just want to say that if Hillary gets past all the goop showered on her that I have taken the liberty to choose her inaugural song: Ain’t No Mountain High Enough”. What do you think?
The nominee has to be legitimate and MI and FL has to be included for legitimacy purposes. How would Obama voters feel if we based the winner on just the primaries and not those undemocratic caucuses? Why that would take states, votes, and delegates from Obama. Thats how we feel about MI and FL.
Michigan is so complicated. A revote would settle it, but I bet Obama doesn’t want to get beat in the same state twice (ditto w/ FL).
Pat: I like it. Or how about Hit Me With Your Best Shot by Pat Benatar?
Re; your second point, the NYTimes accusing Clinton of attacking–here, there, everywhere!
Daniel Schorr on NPR this morning gave this as an example of Hillary attacking: During the debate, asked whether her opponent was electable, she said, yes, yes, yes, and then she said she would be a better. This was considered an example of AN ATTACK .
IIRC, her opponent did say he would also be better–which was not an attack?
I realize Daniel Schorr is getting into the really old age category, but, good grief.
Whoever first said that the MCM was going to make the first 40-odd minutes of the debate the excuse for not discussing how clearly Clinton cleaned Obama’s clock during the issues portion of the debate (and, in my opinion, even in the earlier portion for the most part) — for not even talking about how Clinton was better on substance and even style
— that person naile it.
Daniel Schorr began his discussion of the debate talking about the first 40-odd minutes and did condemn the moderators. However, while doing so, guess what the first example of a non-substantive issue was? Tthe Tuzla landing story from Hillary! Guess what the second example was of the moderators going after a non-substantive issue ? Tuzla! Then, a third example was tossed in, the Rev. Wright issue. All three were supposed to be issues which had been covered and should not have been brought up.
Most of the MCM criticism of their the ABC moderators was of their pressing Obama on issues which the MCMers deemed unimportant. Schorr made it Tuzla, Tuzla (hint, hint, listeners–Hillary really screwed that up, didn’t she, the lying, conniving…female candidate?), then Wright. He did not even mention what the other non-issues were,. Now, of the issues brought up by ABC, Ayers just might come back to bite Obama even harder in the general election–no mention.
The only real way Schorr varied from the rest of the MCM in criticizing ABC’s hosts was in implying that Hillary got just as good as Obama from the moderators. Tuzla, Tuzla!
Schorr also told NPR listeners that both candidates have become adept debaters. HUH? In this debate, Obama was back to his earlier hemming, hawing, creating a waterfall of words before he finally got to his point–if indeed he did. But, if people had not watched the debate, Schorr worked to cement the MCM narrative–both candidates did well! Under difficult circumstances! Don’t believe your lying eyes! Hillary was not better debater! Obama’s just as good and he doesn’t attack….
So, the take away for NPR listeners is Obama still all good, except for that little matter of Wright which has been dealt with sufficiently, and Hillary–Tuzla, Tuzla.
Schorr’s point was that issues were ignored. by the moderators (as if this were the first time this had happened in these debates!)
Then he proceeded to completely ignore substance and issues–bcz, he said, everything the candidates said had been said already, so why bother to talk about it in a wrap-up of the debate.
Even one-time journalistic heroes have been subsumed into the MCM morass.
Damn, but I wish NPR transcripts were easily available (can’t afford Nexis-Lexis)–bcz NPR, while better than the clearly labeled MCM (mainstream corporate media) sure has its moments of MCMness.
rd:
Love it!! Do you think our Hillary checks into this website? It would be wonderful to think that she knows there are many of us out there who truly admire and support her like this group does and offers her comfort in that she is not alone.
jawbone: you can usually link to the piece on NPR. Most everybody has a media player these days. Here’s the link: Clinton-Obama debate: More Heat than Light Oh really?
Pat: I don’t know if Hillary does but I’m reasonably certain that her campaign internet staff does (Hi, Peter!) But just in case she’s watching, wave to her.
BTW, we are not officially affiliated with the Clinton campaign. We just like her and like to counter haka.
Re: Nagourney’s article title, “Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate”:
In the first iteration on the web, the headline was the same except for the beginning–
“Clinton Uses Broad Attacks in Tense Debate”
Emphasis mine, but someone blogged about it, which is the only reason I know about the the first headline. Now, where did I read that….
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-04-17T23%3A23%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=20
Found it! Misrembered the headline slightly–Kate at Shakespearessister caught it.
I need to go wash my windows. They are as opaque as the reasons the Obamabots have for supporting “the One”.
RD–Thanks for posting the NPR link.
SInce I tend to learn both by listening and reading, and slighlty better through reading, I prefer to read transcripts than take the time to listen to the segments. My personal style–which makes not having NPR transcripts annoying. Guess they need to make money by selling transcripts.
“She’s given stellar debate performances and never thumbs her nose at voters.” Except it’s just been reported that, lo these many weeks ago, she told MoveOn to bite it, and good for her. And the tools over at Politico are actually describing those fauxgressives as “the base” of the Democratic Party!
@ chimera: “Now I see a Democratic Party making a McGovern mistake when the stakes could not be higher and I am blown away.” Except it isn’t a mistake, it’s an orchestrated coup, brought to you by the Clinton Derangement Caucus (CDC). As someone said yesterday, lucky for the Dems that they still have another foot to shoot off–maybe on [sic] a duck blind, with a six-shooter [sic]?
Can the level of “thought process” executed by BO supports get any lower? Yep, when he loses. I have spent my morning letting the Democratic “leadership” know how I view their support for BO – the unqualified non-electable candidate they have been pushing. I let the DNC know long ago I was not buying their actions. This morning I let Kennedy, Kerry, “Howie”, Pelosi, etc. know in no uncertain terms They could color me, my money, my support gone. The prancing around, flipping or not flipping the bird, the obvious “brushing off his shoulders” was so immature, so low, so embarrassing. He was communicating with his “base” – how telling. This is a presidentail candidate? The level of this primary is disgusting and juvenile. I have suffered through Bu$h along with the rest of this country – it has been demoralizing. To think that my own party could find someone lower than Bu$h, stupider that Bu$h is sickening.
It is so ironic that BO’s theme has been unitying people with the “Audacity of Hope” – could anyone be more the total opposite? The audacity of hype would be the correct title.
Each time I read what his “supporters” write or even watch an interview with his obvious “has a lumber yard on their shoulder” bitter supporters I feel the need to vomit. With all America’s issues right now – they have only one – elect the “one”. Identity politics anyone?
Can anyone name any real issue in America that we have that he has an answer for – then against other than hating the Clintons? Does he have a magic toggle that allows such hyprocisy? Not hardly. He is everything he says he is against – he is throwing money at it to get elected. And I thought Bu$h was a low as we could go.
Thanks DNC, DCCC, D “leaders” – thanks for nothing.
Palomino: Yeah, well MoveOn is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Remember the Petraeus controversy where she stuck up for them and voted that if you’re going to condemn MoveOn, you have to condemn all the Swiftboating crap as well and she put her vote on the line for them? And remember Obama, um, didn’t? And then they turned around and gave HIM their endorsement. Oh, yeah, MoveOn and DFA are the movers and shakers at the caucuses, no doubt about that. I can see where DFA is coming from, given that Jim Dean is Howard’s brother and all. But MoveOn? That one just boggles the mind. But I’m sure they’re doing all of this and supporting Obama (for no discernable reason that makes sense) for our own good. Even though we didn’t ask them to take this task upon them, I’m sure they expect us to thank them for it later. Right now, we must just seem like so many ignorant ungrateful wretches. It must pain them to have to have to be in the same party but, well, it’s like noblesse oblige. *sigh*
riverdaughter–
Ha ha ha. Thanks for posting those innane BO supporter comments. I missed all the action yesterday. Hey, we aren’t pathetic, but their candidate is.
Boo: So, if he was communicating with his “base” and we didn’t get the message, does that mean we are NOT his base or is he suggesting that we are just incapable of understanding ebonics (as the lyrics and hand gestures would indicate)? Because I’ve been reading a lot of comments to that effect. You know, we don’t understand the pimp references and pimp is not a bad thing as we understand it (a sometimes brutal procurator of semi-enslaved flesh for money). Yes, yes, I know, it’s hard out there for a pimp butcha know, that’s Hollywood, not the White House, where, presumably, there is some kind of dignity and protocol and serious and weighty matters. Oh, sure, there is humor and not so dignified behavior but we’ve all seen that sometimes the country is better off not being distracted by that.
I dunno, I will just emigrate to Antarctica if I have to listen to four years of rap. I wouldn’t push my CD of Finnish runespiel on the unsuspecting and then make fun of them for not getting it. Why should I be subjected to something that makes my ears hurt and then be told that I’m just too uncool to understand what Obama is saying to his “base”? What about the REST of us?
Boo Radley: that we have that he has an answer for
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Sounds to me like you’re a little afraid of work, hmm? Or is it enlightenment that you abhor?
hlr: I think Boo is on our side.
Can we please please please stop letting the OFB get away with the “Brush Your Shoulder Off” reference.
He was not brushing his shoulder off, he was flicking his shoulder off. You brush cat hair off you shoulder, you flick off bird shit, because you don’t want to get it on your hand.
These are two very different visual images, designed to convey two different messages.
This whole, “it was a Jay-Z reference” is just a pathetic attempt by his supporters to put some kind of innocent context behind his denigrating gestures. And it explains the shoe scraping thing so much better than a tortured Stones reference.
He was saying, “What do you do with shit?” You scrape it off your show if you step in it, or flick it off your shoulder if it lands on you.
He is saying Clinton is shit.
rd: I think Boo is on our side.
Oh yeah? I just don’t think Boo understands the gift we’re getting.
Believe!
hlr: LOL! That’s too funny. But so incredibly accurate.
It’s hard out there for a Pet Rock (TM).
Ohhhh! I get it. hlr, you need to use blockquote tags.
I think hlr was quoting Michelle Obama, Charles.
I remember George W. Bush flicking bird poop off his shoulder also. It must be a guy thing.
The Abomonation of Desolation (Matthew 24:12)
http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/BibleStudies/Definitions/Def_AoD.htm
‘The abomination of desolation is a Hebrew term that many Christians don’t understand. It is defined by the placing of an idol to worship in place of YAHWEH, which is set up in the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The final setting up of an idol will take place in the future when the antichrist, the man of sin, will declare himself God in the rebuilt temple, placing himself up as an idol and demanding worship from the world.’
Not sure how to do links. Christians us the term ‘abomination of desolation’ too. End times, etc.
Aeryl said:
“Can we please please please stop letting the OFB get away with the “Brush Your Shoulder Off” reference.
You’re absolutely right. That is a gesture I know first hand because as I said, we grew up doing it. It’s such a diminishing insult, even today, you do that in my face i”ll punch you in the nose with the intention of breaking it.
I am very amused by the Matt Y, Spencer Ackerman and all those little (white) kids who have been righting that it shows how cool Obama is. I challenge anyone of them to do it to a black person in his face. They’ll see how cool we think it is.
To me that was one of the worst offenses of the campaign.
I understand “the gift”, my frontal lobes have developed making me immune to “enlightenment”. I was not raised to look to others for solutions, but, to be responsible for my actions and realize there are consequences in life. That I am not alone but part of a group that should work for the greater good of all.
That there are any supporters who give tacit approval to showing your butt in public in a presidential primary in the most primate manner(oh, please don’t do it if there is anything lower – please! that was not a challange – spare us!) shows certain base-ness in his base. I do not for one minute look to the Kalifornia Klassy Effete er elite to name my candidate.
I value honor, integrity, experience which is on record. By the way, throwing money at something will not make you a better candidate nor more acceptable if you have nothing to offer besides that. Most voters have a value system unlike the DNC< DCCC<media<certain hate based blogs.
Did I just hear a politic advisor on MSNBC state someone is worried about BO’s supporters acting out when he loses? Sounds like they got labeled as bullies………
personally, I loooooove hip hop. most of what I listen to right now is hip hop and R&B to be honest. (now playing: Mary J Blige.) What I see from a lot of the Obama blogger boys is delight at the perception that their candidate is hip enough to make references to Jay-Z, while they’re evidently unaware that the gesture is an insult, not a song reference – whatever Jay-Z raps about he’s not inventing, it’s not like he’s a southern rapper trying to start a dance craze 🙂
MABlue, though, my question.. since I don’t know the full significance of the gesture myself, it’s very old and very insulting? Does Obama know this and does he care or is he just trying to be cool?
daria g,
It’s a very old gesture among us. I personally didn’t even know about Jay-Z’s video. My R&B taste is somewhere else. I’ve been with MJ Blidge since her debut, for example.
Obama knows full well what he was doing. Remember, he started by saying Hillary was in her element, and then proceeding to do the gesture, seeing how well his audience was responding.
That gesture means” you’re nothing but bird droppings on my clothing. The only thing I can do is to wipe you off”. Along with the gesture comes the facial expression, which is nothing but contempt.
As I said, let one of these BO bloggers go on the street and do it to a black person. They’ll understand how “cool” it is.
Lyn5: It’s a bird-brain thing.
Okay, Barack and JayZ flick.
Mary Martin (from South Pacific) washes</b
Oopsie bad code but ya get da drfit…
I read the Fremon piece at Huffpo (link below).
I listened to the 65 second audio.
I heard a distinct click about a quarter or third of the way through, which sounded like an edit to me–somewhat clumsy edit. Was it edited?
I looked for a date and location for the tape–saw none in the article. Just a confusing sort of timeframe–sometime around, after, Super Tuesday–and before OH TX–it seems. So it is published two quite awhile after the event where the comments were made. There is no context, as it is only 65 seconds long.
But Fremon had contacted Wolfson, whom she quotes as saying the tape was correct. Since she had access, I’m surprised a reporter, citizen or not, didn’t ask for the date of the tape, location.
You know, those 5 W’s we all learned about in grade school? I realize the modern MCM (mainstream corporate media) journalists are more into narrative (which sometimes is the “why,” but not often) than giving us the who, what, when, where. I was hoping citizen journalists would revert to the more straight forward reporting style, if only to ensure their credibility since they don’t have the imprimatur of a news organization behind them.
Has anyone contacted Fremon to nail down the details? Like how she received the tape? Attendee? Staffer? Disgruntled whoever? I thought that when things came in anonymously the reporter would do as much as possible to give context…. And if from an anonymous source, enough about the source should be told to the reader so the reader can evaluate what kind of credibility to assign to the source…?
With Fowler’s report on Obama’s comments at the SF fundraiser, which she identifed as part rumination, she gave the who, what, when, where, and possible why. She also published it contemporaneously to the event.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html
Link to Fremon piece at HuffPo.
I’d be interested to learn if anyone else detects a click, which might mean possible editing of original words.
Aeryl, agree with your take @ 11:37–and MABlue’s added info @ 1:01–
Pretty far stretch to say Obama was referring to both Jay-Z and The Rolling Stones. Of course, for their Coolnesses, it made it so much more sophisticated.
No, Sen. Obama was referring to Sen. Clinton as shit.
Whatever happens in the election, this ought to make for interesting senatorial “comity” in the future.
Now, was there a “bird “being flipped that then dropped some doo-doo on his shoulder? Hard to tell….
But, wow, this is one of our presidential aspirants! Doing this in public, deliberately, not some venting caught when he thought the mics or cameras were off!!!
Hillary’s inaugural song, played live by Elton John:
The Bitch is Back.
(riverdaughter – you said that Hillary’s campaign staff do check in here)
Campaign staff – may I offer an ad idea? You are REALLY not getting your superior policy info out.
Please make VERY clear the policy difference between you and Obama on energy plans:
That yours follows Gore, Pew Climate Center, NRDC etc: The Common Good.
Obamas is just more BushCheney: nukes n ethanol: good for lobbyists, bad in our water constrained future
(McCain, as you know, would be a repeat of BushCheney with that veto pen ! )
Voters have a right to know that the BipartisanPolicy Center that is advising Obama comprises two ethanol lobbyists, a nuke power CEO, and a Bush I appointee/Conoco-Phillips board member.
And wheres the solar, wind, efficiency, utility decoupling, Connie Mae, carbon SEC risk reporting etc in his plan?
I like the Rocky theme (Gonna Fly Now) whenever she enters the stage sort of like how Bill Clinton always enters with “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.”
“Eye of the Tiger” is also good for her.
Michael Hirsh has two articles in newsweek: First one? Hillary Falling Away, about the newsweek poll, etc:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
Second one? The Wimp Factor: (The Democrats’ Wimp Factor
As Obama’s patriotism is questioned, he’s starting to look more and more like John Kerry in ’04.)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132566
YOUR NEWS MEDIA AT WORK. NEED I SAY MORE?
Riverdaughter,
I posted a small link here couple of days ago that didn’t get any attention. It was a comment on a righty web site about ‘the flip’, and how the media is NOT covering it. The commenter said, “Outrage? Nah, Just file it for the Big One”, The Big One is of course the GE.
Do you think conservatives are stupid? No, look at what they have to run with:
— huge emphasis on MI and FL in their convention, perhaps even taking the stage with McCain (didn’t Florida establish him as the front runner?). Good luck fighting against that image, Howard.
— The “bitter” comment, and now the video of him saying that voters agreed with it.
— To know me is to love me.
— His supporters unable to name a single accomplishment.
— “the finger”, is this presidential behavior?
— a Jon Stewart type montage of umms in the debates. In the times of crisis, does this guy have a clue?
–I won’t even mention associations.
–flip, flop on NAFTA
There is an excellent video of David Gregory’s show on youtube, showing a tape of James Carville (about how Republicans run the GE campaign), and Harold Ford was right there agreeing with Carville. Ford said, look at what they ran against me, and how there were critism of GOP ads against him, but GOP didn’t bat an eye.
Look, no way was Obama making a reference to the Rolling Stones. Sweet Virginia is six tracks deep on Exile On Main Street, and most people have probably never heard it (or if they have, they’ve never understood the lyrics in That Song After Tumbling Dice through Exile’s muddy recording). Satisfaction it ain’t.
Secondly, I call bullshit on those that argue:
“… we don’t understand the pimp references and pimp is not a bad thing as we understand it …”
HIp-hop isn’t exactly new. The pimp references, in which being similar to a pimp-as-the-bad-thing-as-we-understand-it is a good thing, are not much changed from fifteen and twenty years ago. Some of us get the language and the references, or at least those that have stood the test of time. Admittedly, I got out of it around MC 900-Foot Jesus and Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy, but even so … the argument that pimp and bitch are not necessarily bad, gender-based slurs or anti-compliments in the hip-hop lexicon smashes to bits on the rocks of the fact that actually, most of the time, even in the hip-hop lexicon, they are.
dotcommodity @ 3:36–Excellent points on energy policy and need to make it known. Thnx!
dearr rap/hip hop fans: to each his own
I love all kinds of music, world music especially
but rap feels like an ear infection to me and I just want it to stop
sorry
jawbone: Paul Lukasiak has a story about the Fremon piece, over at Corrente.