• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on Stuff I learned today
    abc on Stuff I learned today
    riverdaughter on Stuff I learned today
    katiebird on Stuff I learned today
    katiebird on Stuff I learned today
    Sweet Sue on Stuff I learned today
    riverdaughter on Stuff I learned today
    katiebird on Stuff I learned today
    paper dollr doll on Stuff I learned today
    r u reddy on Supercitizens
    r u reddy on Supercitizens
    Sweet Sue on Supercitizens
    paper dollr doll on Supercitizens
    paper dollr doll on The White House ignored the St…
    paper dollr doll on The White House ignored the St…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos debate Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov   Jan »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The End of the Rebels in the Ukraine and the Ukraine’s Future
      We’re down to street fighting in Donetsk.  The Russian leaders resigned in the last two weeks.  The rebels appear to be done, at least in terms of their conventional military phase (of course, I could be wrong depending on how much stomach Ukrainian troops have for house to house fighting).  It seems like that would [...]
  • Top Posts

But Hillary Voted For The Warrrrrr!

Hillary The Devil!!!111!!!

Hillary The Devil!!!111!!!

Bloody hands. Warmonger. NeoCon DLC AIPAC hack. These were all words used by “progressives” to describe Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It was the excuse they all gave for claiming that Obama was a progressive and ever so far to the left of Hillary on foreign policy. Now what for the Obamasphere, as their progressive hero has appointed many Clintonites, including Hillary herself, to be Cabinet members and close advisors? (More schadenfreude: As of today, we can add one more Clintonite to the column – Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary. Expect more impotent howling from Blogosphere 1.0.)

Let me spell it out for you, Obamans: Obama. Was. Lying.

Obama successfully used his speech against invading Iraq in 2002 to cover the fact that he and Hillary are virtually identical in terms of foreign policy. I have always thought this, and have maintained that Hillary will always be too hawkish for me because I’m more in the Dennis Kucinich mold when it comes to war and peace. For me, the reason to prefer her over him was never that she was to the left or right of him regarding Iraq; it was the fact that she had served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, had always been a friend to our troops in need, and had a long list of accomplishments and contacts in the world outside of America. In other words, EXPERIENCE. And frankly, seeing that Obama has kept Robert Gates on as SecDef, and seeing how Hillary dissed him completely during the press conference (she was supposed to introduce him, but did not do so or even look at him), I wonder if she is a little more dovish than he. But I suppose we will never know the answer to that question.

In any case, Barack Obama sure squeezed a lot of mileage out of that speech, didn’t he? He used it to bamboozle and okie-doke the Obamasphere, which was all too willing to buy his baloney because of the fact that he wasn’t a Clinton or a scary female-type-person. He thundered on and on about his superior judgment because of that speech, and when Bill Clinton tried to expose his true position on the war, Obama was quick to brand him a racist in order to prevent inconvenient facts like this from oozing out to the CDS-possessed, factually-challenged, Obama-worshiping “progressives:”

The former president had been complaining the news media paid too little attention to Obama’s record on the war. Then, he pointed an accusing finger at Obama.

“You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. There’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” he said.

So, Obama took that 2002 speech, which he claimed represented the bestest judgment evah, off his own website in 2004 in order to push a more “moderate” line on the war once he became a U.S. Senator and would, you know, have to back up his words with actions. Lest you doubt Bill, Obama did exactly the same thing with his language on “the surge,” once he told Bill O’Reilly that it was a success: he changed his website, replacing his earlier, correct position with a more “moderate” (i.e., right-wing) position to reflect his ever-changing, yet oh-so-deeply-held, progressive principles.

Surprise surprise, Obots, Obama is a hawk.

 

Imagine the utter despair in Obotia if they had been forced to confront the truth about Obama and his similarity to Hillary on the war! Their entire rationale for thinking Obama was “progressive” would have gone right out the window, along with their excuses for the constant, mind-numbing, non-stop Hillary-bashing on their sites! What would they do without their 24-hour Hate to keep them going? Lucky for them that Hillary is going to be SOS, so they can blame her for anything they perceive as being out of line with Obama’s supposed “progressive” ideology. Lordy, he must be laughing his ass off every day at how gullible they are!

I tried many times to talk to Obama supporters rationally about their candidate; to demonstrate, factually, that he was not who he thought they were. But every time I started to get through to them, they would begin frothing at the mouth about how Hillary voted for the war. That was their go-to excuse. Now, of course, Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the AUMF vote, but Joe Biden was. Guess how he voted? And what did Obama say about voting for the AUMF again?

RUSSERT:  You were not in the Senate in October of 2002.  You did give a speech opposing the war.  But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record.  And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this:  In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.  And then this:  “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.”  That was July of ’04.  And this:  “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.”  It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

OBAMA:  Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war.  And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

The author of this piece then wonders:

But wait.  Wasn’t it Obama who’s been criticizing other Democrats, specifically Clinton, for triangulation, calculating quotes and saying different things to different audiences to avoid alienating any potential voters?

Why yes, yes it was.

Insert enormous eyeroll here.

We told you so.

Cross-posted at Partizane

About these ads

130 Responses

  1. Logic doesn’t work on Obots — seriously, mankind is getting dumber by the minute.

  2. Luckily, womankind is getting smarter.
    ;-)

  3. I love watching his sorry Obot supporters and drumbeaters twist themselves into pretzel shapes in order to offer a valid defense of the moron. They bought a pig in a poke with absolutely no idea what he stood for. As it is, nothing at all.

  4. the youtube rocks. Obama, not so much.

  5. the youtube rocks. Obama, not so much.

  6. Check out Dissenting Justice tomorrow for a related analysis.

  7. catarina – I have seen that d*mn groundhog 8 million times, and it makes me laugh every single time!

    It’s the simple things in life. Schadenfreude, dramatic rodents, Ghirardelli chocolate…

  8. Obama clearly said he would have voted for the war had he been in the Senate at the time and seen the intelligence that was shown to the Senators. At that time the Senators had to trust the President and what he was telling them. I don’t think anyone wanted to believe this President would lie us into war, even though the evidence was there that he was fudging the truth BIG TIME.

  9. Did Happy Black Guy morph into Amazing Cindy Crawford?

  10. Madamab: What have you done with HBG. I hope no laws were broken. ;)

    Personally, this is the argument that made me want to explode. If I was advised that I was engaging in “relativism” one more time, I was going to cut the nearest Obot.

  11. Newsflash: Happy Black Guy is really a white woman.

  12. For me it is past the time for I TOLD YOU SO.
    I look a people that I trusted and respected and now have to think you did not do the best for this country.
    If it comes down to it will you ever again do the best for this country.
    Your hold on power was more important then experience,qualifications and just plain common sense and love for this country.
    The only thing that kept this country from being a third world country when there were power changes were the fair elections.
    Both the dems and the republicans screwed that up big time.

    WOMEN,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  13. Why, whatever do you mean?

    (bats eyes innocently)

  14. Love it, madamab.

    And, you are right about the fortunate fact that womankind is getting smarter.

  15. You are right, Helenk – but I just can’t help saying it. I am evil that way.

    Once Obama is inaugurated, I’ll probably be too nauseous to gloat. I’m enjoying it while I can.

    MB HAKA :evil:

  16. madamab
    I bet you eat cocoa beans even if they cry.

    WOMEN,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  17. madamab — from your lips to God’s ears, but 60% of the women voters voted for B0 therefore condoning the sexism, voter fraud, etc.

  18. HBG is really a white woman? I think all white women have just been insulted. :)

  19. Angie – And until this year, I would have been one of them. Heck, until about February, I would have been one of them.

    Helenk – I wear earplugs.

  20. lol – too funny, madamab

  21. Axelrod was saying the other day that he would continue doing for Obama as communications adviser, what he had been doing for the past SIX years.
    I have often wondered if Axelrod actually maneouvred that anti-Iraq war speech into being.
    Apparently BO was inserted as a speaker at that rally, at the last moment by someone from Chicago (read who it was last week but can’t remember where/who)

    Or is that too much tin-foil??

  22. I see madamab is using her powers of humor to deflect that annoying HBG once again! Her stuff is better than a paid comedian!!

  23. bostonboomer, kb, anyone?

    the obamalama bling bling thread appears to be infested with vermin

  24. In an interview somewhere Obama admitted to talking to Axelrove before appearing at that anti-war rally

  25. Laurie – SIX years?! Wow. WOW!

    I’ll bet Axelrove pumped up his profile to give him that keynote speech at the 2004 Convention. Obama was one of the many speakers at that event, IIRC – the main attraction was Jesse Jackson.

    Was it Emil Jones that put him into that forum at the last minute? Seems like his M.O.

  26. Angie: someone is casting aspersions on your find self in the Obamalama bling bling thread.

  27. No it was a female. Will try to look up links if you like.

  28. I meant fine. Sigh.

  29. Laurie – I’d like! If it was a woman, most likely it was Valerie Jarrett.

    BTW – I alerted the mods re: the trolls. Sadly, I can only edit them on my own threads.
    ;-)

  30. Laurie:

    That’s what I recall too.

    I think it was a NYT or WaPo story from April or May – “Obama in his own words?”

  31. Someone help me to understand: I have turned off my tv, cancelled subscriptions, deleted blogs from my bookmarks, and stay away from places who deify Obama since it offends me.

    I do not go looking for trouble on other sites nor do I leave stink bombs to try to rile the commentors. Yet these ignorant Obots come in here as if they have the right to correct, denigrate, insult, demean, and offend.

    Leave well enough alone for God’s sake! If you think we are delusional idiots then leave us to our idiot delusions.

    What is wrong with these people?

  32. Notice, they don’t read the threads where we talk about stuff that is not really Obama centric, i.e., the Which Came First thread yesterday. If you actually ask them to think critically, their head’s explode.

  33. PJ – This is what I don’t understand.

    As for me, I don’t go places where I’m not wanted. I guess I am not so pathologically desperate for attention that I have to seek out and attack people who disagree with me.

  34. Valerie Jarett rings a bell.
    Found this for now:

    Oh, Axelrod believes. But since the moment he met Obama in 1992? That would be revising history.

    Their relationship began when Bettylu Saltzman, a Democratic activist in Chicago, suggested that the two men should become acquainted. She was a volunteer in Illinois for Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, and Obama was leading a voter-registration drive.

    Impressed, Saltzman predicted to her friends that Obama would be the first black president. So she thought he should know the city’s best-known political strategist. (Told about the story recently, Axelrod conceded remembering few specifics about their meeting and said, “We went out to lunch, maybe?”)

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/27/america/adviser.php

  35. Micki – IAAO for them. They can only focus on their Precious. Poor things, it must be tough wandering around with those little helmets on their heads, staying away from sharp objects.

  36. Here it be:

    Betty Lu Saltzman, a Democratic doyenne from Chicago’s lakefront liberal crowd, convened a small group of activists, including Ms. Katz, in her living room to organize a rally to protest the United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. It was late September 2002, and Mr. Obama was on the top of Ms. Saltzman’s list of desired speakers.

    She had first met him when he ran the black voter registration drive in the 1992 election, and was so impressed that she immediately took him under her wing, introducing him to wealthy donors and talking him up to friends like Mr. Axelrod. But with just a few days to go before the rally, Ms. Saltzman was having trouble reaching Mr. Obama. Finally, she said she left word with his wife.

    But before Mr. Obama called her back, he dialed up some advice.

    With his possible run for the United States Senate, he wanted to speak with Mr. Axelrod and others about the ramifications of broadcasting his reservations about a war the public was fast getting behind. An antiwar speech would play to his Chicago liberal base, and could help him in what was expected to be a hotly contested primary, they told him, but it also could hurt him in the general election.

    “This was a call to assess just how risky was this,” said Pete Giangreco, who along with Mr. Axelrod described the conversation. When Mr. Obama tossed out the idea of calling it a “dumb war,” Mr. Giangreco said he cringed. “I remember thinking, ‘this puts us in the weak defense category, doesn’t it?’ ”

    The rally was held on October 2, 2002, in Federal Plaza before nearly 2,000 people. On the podium before speaking, Mr. Obama joked about the dated nature of crowd-pleasing protest songs like “Give Peace a Chance.” “Can’t they play something else?” Ms. Saltzman recalled him saying.

    The speech, friends say, was vintage Obama, a bold but nuanced message that has become the touchstone of his presidential campaign: While he said the Iraq war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences,” he was also careful to emphasize there were times when military intervention was necessary. “He has made it a mission to use language so it doesn’t alienate or castigate people with other points of view,” explained his friend Ms. Minow.

    Still, Mr. Obama’s refrain about supporting some wars perplexed some in the crowd.

    An event organizer, Carl Davidson, recalled that a friend “nudged me and said, ‘Who does he think this speech is for? It’s not for this crowd.’ I thought, ‘This guy’s got bigger fish to fry. At the time, though, I was only thinking about the U.S. Senate.”

  37. I used an apostrophe where I should not have. I’m a mess today. That Obama musical really threw me for a loop.

    What does IAAO mean, madamab?

  38. Micki:

    I closed comments on that thread so I wouldn’t have to clean up their crap.

  39. Laurie – Jon Favreau is Obama’s chief speechwriter? How the heck did I miss that?

  40. Happy Black Guy:

    Why don’t you start your own blog?

    Then no one can interfere with your ability to enlighten the world.

  41. Madamab: are you thinking of the Swinger, or do you know its not that guy? I assume you know its not, just asking.

  42. Good job, Myiq!

  43. We all have points of view. Most of the time they converge but there have been threads when we all did not agree yet it has seldom turned into a bloodbath.

    This blog shares like minded principles overall yet there are certain areas or policies where we diverge. Nothing wrong with that. But these petulant little pieces of pissants just feel the need to pop in and pop off a few rounds of idiocy and demand to be heard.

    It drives me nuts. I do not expect everyone to agree with me 100% but I would not deny someone the right to disagree with my POV. That constitutes an overall discussion and I will admit to having my own opinion changed at times while I read reasonable and factual information.

    But to all those visiting Obots, give it a rest!

  44. Micki – You are SO MONEY!!!

    Sorry – I think it IS the movie star/director/writer! I will go check.

  45. Myiq–I was about to say that to HBG. He seems genuinely passionate about it and he does seem to attempt to be respectful. And he appreciated that Riverdaughter was gracious in defeat on November 5th. He just has the wrong audience here.

  46. Okay, it’s not THAT Jon Favreau. It’s a guy by the same name who is all of 27 years old. Is he the stereotypical Obot, or what?

    Link

    No wonder the young ‘uns think Obama is all that.

  47. No, madamab, its some 27 year old punk who can write well.

  48. Yes, madamab. You owe me a coke.

  49. We’ve always known that those who used the Iraq vote were using it as a fig leaf to cover the fact that Obama did not measure up against Hillary. Every time anyone used the Iraq vote as an excuse, I followed up with a question: Did you support Kerry? The answer was always “yes”. I ended with a statement: Then your reason for not supporting Hillary has nothing to do with her Iraq vote. It was a beauty to see them shift to other CDS reasons.

  50. Oh, IAAO means “It’s all about Obama.”

    Sorry, HBG is just tr0lling. I have no problem with people supporting Obama if they have something interesting to say. But all he does is post a bunch of Obot talking points, miss the point of everything we say, call us names, and throw up straw man arguments to get attention.

    He needs to leave.

  51. Happy Black Guy used to be known as Angry Black Guy back in the day before The One won. He posted all the time at Tennessee Guerilla Woman where the posters over there used to kick him around like a cat with a ball of yarn.

    I stopped visiting that site since I could not stand to read his insipid entreaties on behalf of Obama and managed to pour out his own misogyny against the female posters on that blog.

    Anyone who uses a screen name proclaiming their race and gender as Angry Black Guy has issues. Baiting other posters day after day as he does is foolish. His tone may be respectful but his intent is suspect.

  52. You’re right, Micki!

    Voila!

  53. This is six years quote:

    David Axelrod, President-elect Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist, will have the same White House title that Karl Rove did: “senior adviser.”

    But Axelrod says he’ll do the job very differently and with more specific responsibilities: promoting Obama’s message rather than strengthening a political party.

    “I’ve never accepted that comparison,” Axelrod told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “My role with Barack Obama for the last six years has been to help the communications operation impart his message, his values, and his vision to the American people. And I expect to continue to do that. …

    http://tinyurl.com/6cehmk

  54. Laurie – Well, if Axelrove says he is not like Karl Rove, it must be so, despite the fact that his job description and duties are exactly the same – catapulting the propaganda!

    La la la, Unity Pony!

    (I believe that is the first song of “Obama, The Musical!”)

  55. Pat J: “His tone may be respectful but his intent is suspect.”

    Good point. I guess I’m just a sad sack. He is not being rude, like the guy on the other thread who *seriously* insulted Angie just now.

  56. Yeah, I think the “But she was for the war” comment was the battle cry for paid opponents to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I don’t have proof, it just feels like it was the battle cry of those opposed to Hillary Clinton. Was Soros or Huffington involved?

    http://www.DailyPUMA.com

  57. “Obama, the Musical”, starring madamab in the duel roles of Donna B and Michelle O. With Pat Johnson in the supporting role of Nancy Pelosi, the part she was meant to play say the critics.”

  58. Laurie — of course Axlerod has no interest in “strengthening” the Dem. Party — B0 doesn’t give a shit about the Dem Party because B0 IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.

    Alright all, I’m leaving work now — see ya later!

  59. Have you guys seen the graphic on the bbc article? Its priceless. My links aren’t working, though, so I can’t do a url link. There are dancers in white in the background.

    According to the article, John McCain is the “chief villain.” Wait, here is the quote: “”McCain comes in as the villain, the chief villain. His supporting cast are George Bush and Sarah Palin who are standing in Obama’s way,” the director says.”

  60. Angie-If Hill hadn’t decided to strengthen the Dem Party, despite what was done to her, those two would have left it in tatters.
    I will never forget Chelsea saying in mid June that her mother was a firm believer in Unity.

  61. For Micki:

    Obama, The Musical

    LOLOLOLOLOL

  62. Ah, thank you, madamab. And thanks for the coke. :) I have no change and was very thirsty.

  63. Alessandro – You might be right, but the people I knew were saying it for months and months before Obama even appeared on the scene.

  64. Angie if it hadn’t been for Hill actually caring about strengthening the Party, those two would have left it in shreds.
    I’ll never forget Chelsea saying in mid June that her mother really cared for Party unity. Or Bill saying that they weren’t Party splitters.

  65. Laurie – You know it. It took Hillary a month to convince herself to campaign for The One. It must have been a very difficult decision for her.

  66. I would not have done it. Seriously. I would not have. I am a Leo and I bear grudges. Its a serious character flaw.

  67. Micki – Hee!

    Well, I am a Virgo and addicted to honesty. I never could be a politician for that reason alone.
    ;-)

  68. hey Alessandro – I keep trying to go to Daily Puma and it is freezing my browser and crashing it. ? I want to read!

    Pat’s right – I think madamab may be the person who was meant to write the musical about this past year. Will it be called Obama: The Musical? Or will it be something else. Unity: The Musical

  69. It’s amazing that so many otherwise intelligent people voted for a man who they saw just give a 15 minute speech at a convention and suddenly he was the savior of the universe and fit to be president! They were willing to cover up, lie, make him over into Jesus Christ’s image and likeness to have this symbolic figurehead at the helm of our country. They bought the lies and deceptions, including my relatives, friends, co-workers who think continually that the emperor wears clothes while he most clearly does not. They continue to believe Obama is a great, brilliant politician (I remind them he is a thug, mobster and the worst kind of politician, but no one seems to listen). Hillary is definitely the bright star in his cabinet and the one he will rely on heavily for her input although pretending to take credit for the brilliance coming from that direction. Since Obama is clueless as to just about everything, he does need very qualified people and that is why he chose Hillary. If Hillary has seen fit to take the position of SOS, she must feel that is her best option at this time. I wish her well on the world stage.

  70. I think it should be Musical Schmoozical. It should focus on Obama’s Cast of Characters and who he schmoozed with to get the 600,000,000 dollars.

  71. I would have gone 3rd party…..hee

  72. Honestly, I am thinking that I have found my next play at last! “Obama the Musical” is giving me many ideas…and don’t worry, Pat, you will definitely have a role, although you will probably steal my thunder!

  73. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Senator Clinton, soon to be Secretary of State Clinton, is going to be the most progressive high level official in the Obama administration. She is and has been more progressive than Obama ever was.

  74. Madamab: how’s your petition to the NY Governor going?

  75. perries, on December 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm Said:

    The title must be “Obamalot.”

  76. Heidi LI!

    (waves furiously)

    I would have liked to have seen HER Cabinet. I am quite sure Robert Gates would not have been in it.

    Heidi or anyone – Do you know anything about Janet Napolitano? I am happy that he chose her for DHS because she is a woman, but I really know nothing about her. Is she a DINO? A good governor?

  77. Heidi Li – Murphy is turning it into a Prowl, and Sheri Tag might too! So far about 70 signatures…:-)

  78. I wish Obama would come out and say:

    “ha ha my little minion Obama-bots I Lied to you I dont need you anymore and so I am dumping all of you dont give 2 $hits I disapoint you…I think you are all worthless scum and if you think I am going to deliver on any promise well HA! FU-

    Oh If you give me any lip I will lable you a R@ci$t! You no longer have a seat at my table I am the big cheeze Again a BIG F-U! Lick my A$$ and i cant wait to send you all to Iraq Iran and Afganistan to die for me…you should consider it an honor you sorry excuses for human beings you worth sheeple! ”

    Obama is a Souless F*ckwad! and a sorry excuse for wastng perfectly good oxygen! He Just Plain Sucks!

  79. madamab: my friend at work here, who wanted Catarina’s McCain cut out, is from AZ. She was just home for Thanksgiving and apparently, AZ people are basically wanting her out asap. Apparently, she has dug AZ into quite the financial hole. I am just relaying information–I do not know first hand facts and have not confirmed with a second source. I do know that her name in AZ is “Governor Balls.” I’m just repeating! Don’t yell at me.

  80. Regarding NY Governor, has anyone thought of writing Hillary and asking that her seat be taken by a woman unless it’s BC.

    Madamab – don’t forget the Obama clothing line. This guy is more of a celeb than a soon to be POTUS.

  81. Obama’s balcony scene:

    Sung to the tune of “dont cry for me Argentina”

    Dont cry for me O-merica the truth is I never Loved you…

    All through my wild days my sorry exisistence I’ll break my promise -You keep you distance!

    As for fortune and for fam I surely invited them in Yes they are all I desired…

    I’m an Illusion—-

    Im running around promising every thing new

    never plenning to deliver at all

    How could you expect me too?

    Dont cry for me O-merica the truth is I never Loved you…

    well its a start

    – and my deepest appologies to Tim rice and Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber

  82. Fuzzy: (applauding) Brava! Brava!

  83. I love that damn groundhog!

  84. There is an old film where Richard Widmark is the villian and pushes an old lady down the stairs.
    I can not think of the name of it.
    backtrack would be perfect in the part.
    That is what he will do to the country so we should be prepared.

    WOMEN,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  85. me to that is one cute hampster!

    sorry Ive got to stop telling you people how I feel….

  86. Hi Madamab: I don’t know much about Napolitano.
    As for the sort of Cabinet Clinton would have appointed – well all we need to do is see what type of Cabinet-member-designate she is already being! See http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_lis_potpourri/2008/12/secretaryofstatedesignate-clinton-already-sets-the-tone.html for more of my thoughts on those lines.

  87. fuzzybeargville, on December 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm Said:

    [applause, applause]

  88. Axelrod talks about imparting Obama’s “vision to the American people.”

    The word “vision” is trotted out incessantly by the Obamanation, but I’ll be damned if I’ve ever heard anyone articulate it.

    As far as I can tell, his vision does not extend past the end of his nose.

  89. I personally find this dramatic chipmunk more appropriate for Pampers

  90. “Governor Balls,” huh? Not a bad nickname, actually.

    Fuzzy – Wonderful lyrics!!

    Nell – Whenever anyone talks about Obama’s vision, I just hear Bush blabbering on about his “gut” and “beliefs.”

    It’s all Oblahblah to me.

    (now to watch Shtuey’s video!)

  91. Oh, naughty Shtuey! LOL

    Downticket – I could send my petition to HRC as well as Governor Paterson. That’s a great idea!!!

    If you haven’t signed it, here it is:

    Petition to Replace Senator Clinton With A Woman

  92. thanks madamab-I love musicals…like most men of my demographic!

    Dont forget Puma United Radio…tonight at 8 pm.

  93. Copied this from HuffPo and the comments are delicious:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/the-debate-over-obamas-fi_n_148225.html

  94. Good point fuzzy…hopefully RD will put up a reminder!

  95. Hillary my Hillary I am going to keep moving forward and hope obama doesnot finish his first term that he realizes or congress realizes he is a big ol’ mess! barring that that maybe Karma will drop a big ol’ house on him…

    This will allow O’biden to take the seat of O’bama and I will allow him to occuppy it long enough for the house to ellect Hillary VP…..

    and then Mr O’biden chokes on a credit card….allowing Hillary to assend to the spot she so richly deserves.

    Oh and with only 729 days left in the 2009-2013 term for president Hillary could still serve 2 full terms as President….And her last laugh….occupying the white house the 10 years Obama wanted to instead of him!

  96. I cant wait till they unviel the next rendition of the street of proken dreams you know ith the diner in it and at the counter are Marlyn Monroe (in an alternate universe she was a successful senator) and James Dean and Elvis Presley….I guess the Obamanation will be seated between Monroe and Dean….

  97. I cant wait till they unviel the next rendition of the “Street of Broken Dreams” you know it the painting of the old New York diner in it and at the counter are Marlyn Monroe (in an alternate universe she was a successful senator) and James Dean and Elvis Presley….I guess the Obamanation will be seated between Monroe and Dean….

    my spelling is awful tonight~

  98. In case you wonder about the Monroe as senator it was from a short alternate reality story called “a night out at the fox and goose”

  99. madamab — is your petition only for women who live in NY?

    fuzzy — those were GREAT lyrics.

  100. I might have missed something in this discussion as I am getting in late, but when looking back at Hillary’s actual speech didn’t she use the words LAST RESORT only after the weapon inspectors completed their work. She like Kerry gave the president authorization for war if proven absolutely necessary, as Congress has done decade after decade. She, congress, and the UN were LIED TO by the Bush administration as she pointed out to Russert (Damned Paparazzi – God rest his soul). At the Time BO was busy voting ‘present’ in Illinois.

  101. I signed it as an interested citizen….

  102. hi Angie!

    how you doing and how is your little kitty?

  103. Thomas 4 Clinton, the only thing I fault Clinton for in the “authorization vote” is trusting W to do the right thing.

  104. Pat J — some surprisingly good comments; however, HuffPo still can’t count. I believe this has got to be at least the THIRD broken campaign promise by BO — First was accepting public financing (or at least discussing it with McCain). Second was filibusting FISA.

  105. Obama does not want to raise taxes on the rich because he will probably be a rich man someday….and he doesnot want to share his piece of the pie….

  106. HI FUZZY!!!! My little BeBe is taking her insulin shots like a champ — she felt so good last night she was playing with me (she hasn’t done that in 2 months).

  107. Angie – of course not! Sign away!
    :-)

  108. that is good angie-that medicine can improve the quality of life of even the Creators smallest creatures!

    Ok any predictions about the next promise Obama will break?

    I say its ENDA DOMA and DADT…all at once and the gays that have been licking his entire body will still come to his alter and worship!

  109. Good Lord — Joe Cannon is reporting that kos actually has published an article titled: “Welcome Secretary Clinton: Obama’s Promises to Be Kept” (I refuse to click on kos).

    LOLOLOLOL — as Cannon points out that is a remarkably Pravda like headline!

    thanks madamab — I’ll sign it then.

  110. You gotta love Obama though for just being so craven. His theme song should be: “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden”.

    Just who in hell have they elected here?

  111. Obama to anounce the repeal of the voters rights act of 1964 as amended….claiming the era it was created in no longer exsists!

  112. I am so glad I didnt vote for this schmuck…anyone got their:

    “DONT BLAME ME I VOTED MCCAIN/PALIN”

    bumperstickers yet?

  113. I was married in 1964. He can repeal that year with no misgivings from me.

  114. Angie – LOLOLOL!

    I guess that would be what Myiq refers to as:

    “I always knew we weren’t getting a pony”

  115. new thread-fuzzy is lonely!

  116. Obama used the same type of deceit that Dubya used in the run-up to the war: that of carefully inferring a nontruth as truth for effect.

    Bush did so in his carefully crafted message, in which, Saddam was linked always with the 911 attacks, but stopped just short of placing the actual blame on Saddam. We all know it worked – the link was made (largely) in the public’s mind.

    Same with BO’s stance on the war: A message delivered carefully so that the political novice would think BO voted against the war, opposing it as a “tough decision” — When we know it was in a speech not covered by the media, in an extremely liberal district when BO was a State Senator, and had not even officially begun his U.S. Senate run (BO lies about this too, claiming he was in the midst of a tough run for the U.S. Senate). To this day, I think it is a non truth which permeates the electorate, much as the linking of Saddam with 911.

    As I watched this bamboozling from Obama unfold, It was clear this was a new kind of politics indeed. A charlatan for the ages. Now I must hope BO’s lack of integrity brings with it no harm to us as a nation.

  117. Hillary also voted for Obama…..

  118. madamab; thanks for the the petition link. With all the talk about Hillary being replaced by Bill, I’ve been wondering where is the media talk about her being replaced by a woman?

    Oh yeah…stupid me. Whoops!

  119. Teresaa – IACF!

  120. And frankly, seeing that Obama has kept Robert Gates on as SecDef, and seeing how Hillary dissed him completely during the press conference (she was supposed to introduce him, but did not do so or even look at him), I wonder if she is a little more dovish than he.

    Is that true madamab? Where did you read that? I didn’t notice, but I was looking at her, not him.

    Also re: the whole war argument, Joe Wilson really nailed him on that too. He was active in the anti-war movement, and said no one ever heard about that speech or ANY effort by Obama to protest the war. Even BO said on tape: “I don’t know how I would have voted if I had bee in the Senate and privy to that intelligence.” Selective vision is a b*tch huh?

  121. Hillary also voted for Obama…..

    How do you know that–were you in the voting booth with her?

  122. Fif – I saw her do it! She just left the podium in silence. She did not look at him at all.

    Gates, and everyone else after him, introduced the person after him or her.

  123. NY sans HRC… *sigh* ..a loss, a BIG loss. Hopefully, upstate will have a friend in whoever is to be installed.

    A song for Hillary:

    http://www.imeem.com/pitchpod/music/uwJT6uG4/damon_poor_poor_genie/

  124. Oh, yeah, great post! Thing is, as a war opponent, I bought this BS for about 5 minutes myself.
    I voted for Hillary’s opponent in the last senate primaries for that reason (the war) and even protested her office once or twice with Code Pink.
    I did however remember B0’s first speech in the Senate: “Who cares how this war started?” so I looked for more evidence.
    So I started finding that Hillary wanted to end war contractors while B0 hearted Blackwater, that she had a withdrawal plan, he did not – so soon that 2002 speech looked like the BS it always was.

  125. madamab
    I hesitate to sign that petition as I have nightmares of Carolyn Kennedy taking over.

  126. so sayeth Bill Clinton:

    “You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. There’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” he said.

    *****
    and out of this, Obama and his media drones made Bill Clinton look like a racist. You have to hand it to Barry, he has proven that he is great at lying and cheating – and that folks is how you win/steal the Presidency.

  127. Epicurious.

    Dont give BO the credit.

    His lies and deception were not called out because the kool-aid drunkards refused to see them. After 8 years of Bush, the general population are hungry for change and the dog BO came along and they regard him as the savior.

    Lies and cheating do not win the presidency — its loads of money to advertise and brainwash; its the solid coverups of all lies and faults by MSM; its the support from the party and from powerful figures that assure the victory in presidency win.

    Any dog can win a presidency if he/she possess these ‘qualifications’.

  128. Chew on this:

    http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/chicken-little-politics-moderate-obama.html

    Snippet:

    “But now that Obama has hired several of the Left’s most despised figures, including Clinton, many progressives have shifted gears and now argue that Obama has betrayed them. Their anger, however, is misplaced. Progressives must blame themselves for believing that Obama was anything other than a moderate politician in the mold of Bill Clinton. They have only recently discovered his true political ideology because their irrational hatred of the Clintons and desperate desire for a progressive president caused them to accept Obama uncritically and project their own desires upon him. He became “their” candidate, even though he designed his campaign to appeal to the broadest audience possible. Now that Obama has signaled that he will not transform the White House into a leftist space, progressives are experiencing collective shock, dismay and a sense of betrayal.”

  129. BUT – Hillary didn’t vote for the war~

    October 10, 2002

    Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
    on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
    United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
    As Delivered

    Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

    I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

    I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

    Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

    In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.

    As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

    In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

    In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

    Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

    Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

    This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

    However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

    If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

    So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

    Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

    But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

    In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

    So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

    While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

    If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

    If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

    If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

    I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

    President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

    Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

    This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.

    And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

    My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

    Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

    And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.

    Thank you, Mr. President.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 448 other followers

%d bloggers like this: