There are a lot of interesting nuggets in the intertoobz these days. Some of these things go together and show the lengths we will go to delude ourselves or cling to tribal beliefs.
Let’s start with a podcast. So, you’ve given up the Judeo-Christian belief system for God 2.0 or no god at all. Some of us would call this progress. Giving up bronze age superstition and tradition for something more modern and relevant is quite a bold step. So, why are so many of you turning to woo? Woo is defined as “ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers”. Woo includes the belief in astrology, auras, energy fields, homeopathy, accupuncture, chiropracty and vaccination phobia. Seth Andrews of the Thinking Atheist interviews various professionals who debunk these woos and tries to explain why otherwise rational people are attracted to them. Let’s put it this way, if you’re into woo, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously. You’d might as well be a nutcase fundy eschatologist. Check out Seth’s recent podcast here.
Jay Ackroyd tries to lead Digby to the light when it comes to Obama’s commitment to a Grand Bargain on Social Security and Medicare. First, go read the piece from Digby where she actually sounds like she’s blown right on past where Conflucians are sitting straight into the arms of the former Democrats who are so angry they’ve started to identify with the Tea Party. Wow. That’s quite a leap. I know the party will reel her back in and, to be honest, we don’t really need more Tea Partiers in Congress, thank you very much. But, yeah, Digby. Jay’s right. The Obama contingent are not liberals. However, Jay is not right that they’re centrists. The Obama contingent is definitely on the right side of center. Nooooo doubt about it. The only way that they are centrists is if you consider moderate republicanism centrist. That would make Bill Clinton a flaming commie. No, no, don’t go there, Jay. We have seen the studies. There’s no way in hell that Bill Clinton is a centrist in the same way that Obama is a “centrist”. The center moved in the past 12 years. You guys have got to accept this because your irrational belief that Clinton is an evil Republican dude compared to Obama, is what got Obama elected in the first place. You’ve been done in by your tribe’s woo. I mean, think about it: your group is asking us to believe that Bill Clinton is, was and always will be more conservative than Barack Obama. Step back and think about that and ask yourselves if that’s rational given everything you now know. If YOU can’t swallow it, why are you asking US to believe it?
As for Digby, I really like her and I’ve found her recent evolution to be promising, if only temporary in the lead up to the election. I expect her to chicken out even though her “Hey! We’re eating grass!” moments are fun to read. There is a place for left of center Democrats who don’t have our minds so wide open that our brains have fallen out. We just need to create it. It probably won’t happen this election cycle unless the Obama half of the party is defeated by the Clinton half of the party. That’s where we are now. You may not think the Clinton half is sufficiently liberal but the American people do. In any case, they’ll drag the party back leftwards like an earthquake in Japan. It could be a true realignment on the way back to sanity. And remember, Wall Street rejected the Clinton half last time. So, you know, how much more proof do you need?? Besides, there is no hope for Howard Dean. Most people don’t know who he is and wouldn’t like him if they did. We need to be realistic and work with what we’ve got. And as far as I can tell, Americans would be ecstatic to return to the Clinton years, even if they were supervised by his wife. A woman in charge would be very good for women in general, wouldn’t you agree? Especially when that woman is a passionate defender of women’s reproductive rights? I mean, can women really trust Obama after they way he dragged his feet on the conscience rule, betrayed us in the healthcare law and kept Plan B behind a counter?
As far as everyone having “skin in the game”, Obama’s term for sacrificing in the upcoming Grand Bargain, um, I’ve seen my industry devastated by Wall Street grasshoppers and I’ve lost a very good living, permanently. So, you know, I’ve already been flayed. Not only that but I’m in the age cohort who has to wait until I’m 67 before I get the Social Security I prepaid for decades. I’m not sacrificing anymore skin. No, do not even ask. Don’t make us come down there to Washington to make your lives miserable. You do not want crowds from the size of my graduating class on the mall. No, you do not. I suggest that Congress go hunt people with an excess of skin, ie wealthy people. Give them a good reason to whine.
The last bit is an interview of Jane Mayer on Fresh Air with Terry Gross entitled “Obama in Impossible Bind Over Donors”. The Impossible Bind is that he wants and needs money from the wealthy and Wall Street but he doesn’t want average voters to know how indebted he is to his big donors so he has to blow the donors off in public. It’s a sad, sad situation. Terry, to her credit, seems to have come around after being such an insufferable Obama fangirl in 2008. Jane Mayer valiantly tries to make Obama look good when it comes to fundraising. You can almost hear Jane pleading with the audience to understand what Obama is up against but I found her extreme earnestness irritating. It’s a cruel world out there. Poor Obama, forced to accept SuperPAC money and trying to make it look like he doesn’t like it. It’s all the fault of the mean Republicans that he’s sucking up all the money he said he didn’t want. And while Romney is appearing at the SuperPAC soirees, Mitt has a deputy actually ask for the money, while Obama goes to the soirees and the money just mysteriously appears for him but he doesn’t suck up to anyone to get it. I find the distinction indistinct.
Oh, but Obama isn’t giving away the Lincoln Bedroom! So, you know, there’s that. And that’s presumably why the donors are complaining. They get nothing from Obama. Not even a tote bag. He won’t even take pictures with his donors so they can use that to name drop. It sounds like Obama got too much of a reputation as a schmoozer in 2008 and he’s desperate to squash that meme this year but that doesn’t mean he’ll be turning the filthy lucre down. He just doesn’t want to have to thank anyone publicly for it.
But the funniest part of the interview is when Mayer is forced to debunk the idea that Obama made the bulk of his campaign money from millions of teensy contributions. I know, you’re probably thinking that small contributions mean less than $100 because that’s what the Obama campaign lead us to believe in 2008. We were all under the impression that millions and millions of working class Joes were mailing $20 to him in gratitude with a little note saying, “Bless you, Barack! Save the Republic. We’ve been waiting all our lives for you!” Right? Intellectually, you know it’s not true because the sheer size of the amount of money he collected, plus all of the contributions from wealthy Wall Street contributors, is public information. But the meme kinda slipped into the chinks of the gray matter and created it’s own woo. It just *had* to be true because so many people repeated it. It’s sort of like that woo we debunked about Obama running a fabulous campaign. Um, no he didn’t, unless you consider gaming the caucuses and paying off the superdelegates and DNC fabulous, and we can prove it but myths die hard.
Anyway, it turns out that the definition of small depends on who is using it. Small donations to you and me would be less than $100. Small donations to the Obama campaign means maxing out at $5000. See the difference? One is $4900 more than the other. What working class stiff has $5000 to stuff into an envelope for a guy who had less than two years of national political experience before he decided to run for president? And inadvertently, Mayer exposes what the Obama campaign thinks of the people who gave less than $5K. They’re not even on the campaign’s radar.
But the final bit of silliness from Mayer is when she contrasts Bill Clinton’s extroversion against Obama’s intellectualism. That’s got to be a first. Whatever you might think of Bill Clinton, making the guy who went to Georgetown, Yale Law School and was a Rhodes Scholar sound like a high school dropout car salesman next to Obama doesn’t really work too well. What she’s really trying to say is that Clinton is a gregarious politician who likes politics and can carry on an intelligent conversation with anyone, even his enemies, but that the Obama contingent doesn’t like politics and getting hands dirty and actually doing the stuff that gets things done. I know that she didn’t mean to say that but that’s essentially what she said. If you were a big money donor, whose campaign would you rather give $5 million to? (George Soros, call me!)
Once the bloom is off of Obama’s rose, you can’t listen to this stuff without laughing at all of the holes in the arguments. The woo is gone.
Filed under: General | Tagged: acupuncture, astrology, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, centrism, chiropracters, Clinton contingent, Digby, grand bargain, Jane Mayer, jay ackroyd, medicare, Obama, skin in the game, small donors, Social Security, SuperPac, Terry Gross, The Thinking Atheist, Woo |
The Confluence 
This is so quotable, I can hardly keep from blockquoting the whole thing.
The Skin in the Game discussion in particular overwhelms me:
But, I mean no disrespect to any of the other paragraphs!
There was some other paragraph by either Jay or Digby that got to the heart of the matter about why the skin argument is so other worldly. It was something about only people inside the beltway think there is excess skin that needs sacrificing. If you’re not a DC pundit, your view of the world is much more realistic.
Of course, that won’t stop them from trying to do it. It’s worked so well in Britain.
Oh, and my local library has 3 pretty good jobs with good benefits. I can tell you from experience that it’s a great place to work.
Um, Kansas in August. Something about corn.
I’m sure it’s a lovely place to work and live. It will go on my list.
Ha! That library is so air conditioned, you practically have to wear your winter coat in August.
But, I know … Kansas in August is bad. I always took my vacation then.
The thing is, all 3 jobs pay pretty well for the cost of living here. And, you get to work with smart people, surrounded by books.
Oh. And a park right outside the back door. With a sidewalk path that is .25 of a mile.
Holy HEMIOLA, that sounds like utopia.
Except for the Kansas in August part.
And it’s only going to get worse as the effects of Global Warming make the Mid-west all but uninhabitable.
In twenty or so years, it will be “Kansas in August” all over America except for maybe the very most northern edge right next to Canada . . . and also Alaska. So perhaps a dread of experiencing “Kansas in August” should not be the thing which prevents one from looking into a good opportunity?
So … Hillary Clinton would be *so much* different from Barack Obama, you say? That would be this Hillary Clinton:
The huge U.S. budget deficit poses a national security threat and projects a “message of weakness” internationally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday as she urged Democrats and Republicans to tackle the problem.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/08/us-usa-deficit-clinton-idUSTRE68748720100908
“…the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. Pres. Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.”
tp://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
Yes, Tom, I do believe she would be different. I think a social security task force under Hillary would have raised the payroll limit which might have been all that was needed. Just because you get all parties together doesn’t mean you have to sell out. And I believe that under Hillary, we would have helped homeowners dealing with foreclosure. And I believe she would have cracked down on the banks, which is why they didn’t support her.
Stop being such a moron, Tom. If the choice is between the candidate that the bankers chose, Obama, or the one the bankers fought to defeat, Hillary, I’d choose Hillary. Are you saying you prefer the banker backed candidate, Tom? Because they got everything they wanted.
As for the US budget deficit, the biggest threat is that the Republicans will pull that debt ceiling shit again or threaten to no meet our international obligations unless the get what they want. She specifically referred to her husband’s administration and the fact that he left the country with a surplus. That’s a dig a the Bush tax cuts. And the biggest threat to the deficit is medicare. We do need to tackle it. But that doesn’t mean we need to end it. It means we need to cut down on medical costs and restructure it, perhaps by moving people into medicare at a lower age, increasing the pool of healthy individuals paying medicare premiums.
BTW, that article in Reuters was edited in a way that conflated her remarks on the START treaty with the budget deficit, failing to make clear connections between the two issues.
I followed his link to his FB page and he doesn’t seem to be supporting Obama.
Does it matter? Former Obots will never admit they made a mistake by blowing Hillary off. It will always be HER fault that they fucked up even after they’ve abandoned Obama for good.
It matters because it’s a symptom of why “the center” keeps moving to the “right” …. We lefties can’t trust anyone with influence no matter how good their intentions.
Sooner or later, you have to trust.
If you read that Reuters article, you will find that it is specifically designed to turn you off your kibble when it comes to Hillary. On the surface, it looks like she’s bought into the grand bargain. But she’s really referring to how the budget deficit issues are affecting the START treaty. She’s speaking as SOS.
Nevertheless, she refers to the surplus at the end of the Clinton years and that means she’s totally onboard with raising taxes on the rich. And we know that she would at least make a determined effort because Bill did.
We have absolutely no such indication from Obama -at all.
Every indication I get from Obama is that he wants to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. That is why he conspired with McConnell and Boehner to pull his little public tap dance of pretending to want to “raise” taxes on the “the very richest Americans”. That was to prevent the legally-called-for expiration of the BushCo tax cuts and the general return to Clinton era tax rates.
Matt Stoller might be a hi-valu former Obot to work in in that regard. If he can be convinced to take the final step of logic, many Stoller-respecters will follow.
I have no idea how to get Stoller to take that last step, of course.
Perhaps Lambert Strether can work on Stoller as blog-social equals.
They both have guest bunks at Fort Naked Capitalism.
I wish I understood why Hillary isn’t given any slack at all. I read through all her position papers back in 2007-8 and she seemed very reasonable to me.
I’m about half-sour on HRC by now.
“Half” because I still think she’d make a better Prez than Obummer on domestic issues.
However, she seems to be OK with our bloody-minded and bloody-handed Empire, while I want my Republic back.
Though in Hill’s–and Obummer’s–defense, any President who decided to dismantle the Empire and restore the Republic would probably be courting the fate of JFK. 👿
To Hamfast Ruddyneck actually . . .
Perhaps the setting aside of empire and the recapture of republic will be driven by a highly informed movement-load of people who are ready to give up that which they gain from empire in order to recover that which they gain from republic. Perhaps people will become ready to accept that they cannot have both at once.
Perhaps regaining republic might be as multi-decades a task as building empire was. Perhaps a fine-grained knowledge of all the details as well as the connecting contexts of planning and engineering
the empire will be necessary in order to figure out how to run all the steps backwards to de-plan and de-engineer away from empire back to republic.
I can think of a couple of books which might help.
http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X
and . . . http://www.amazon.com/Unforgiven-Charles-Walters/dp/091131167X
Did you graduate Magna cum Laude from ass college or is it natural talent?
Thanx to your type we will never know how good a Hillary Clinton in the White House would be much to the detriment of our children.
Go choke on a cheese flavored snack food why don’t you.
So, I bought a cheap denim jumper at Target because it looks very versatile for all seasons and wouldn’t you know, it has belt loops sewn all the way around the dress for a tie. My waistline has moved up about 4 inches, putting it just below my boobs. This is the typical s^&* tall women have to put up with. I now have to find my seam ripper and take every one of these damn belt loops off so I can wear a belt at my natural waist.
I don’t think there is a political “center” as the term is used in the MSM. There are people who lean left to widely varying degrees, people who lean right to widely varying degrees, and people with no real ideology, or who are all over the map (right on some issues, left on others, often holding positions that contradict one another). But you won’t find many people at some strange midpoint between the Socialists and the Tea Party. (I mean, what would that even look like? Certainly nothing like Tom Friedman, or the late David Broder, or Mayor Bloomberg-the MSM’s idea of “the center.”)
The way ackroyd et al use the word “centrist” is very misleading. They are defining a particular ideology and then deliberately slapping people with this label whether or not there is a fit. Apparently, obama and Clinton are both third way centrists. But this ignores the fact that the center has moved so far right that lumping Clinton in with them is meaningless. I saw Clinton as moderately liberal. They see him as the vanguard of some rightward march. I see him as business friendly in a way that previous liberal Democrats were not. They see him as corporatist.
It’s a bizarre manifestation on the left of the same black white thinking that is characteristic of the right. And then there is the whole DLC bugaboo. I think we’ve all joined clubs at their inception that morphed into something else as time goes by. Like, dailykos used to be a lot more fun and accepting before Markos started taking money to shill for Obama. Now, it’s nothing like what it was in 2006. I can’t believe I passed up a trip to Martha’s Vineyard to go to yearlyKos in las Vegas. Sure I had fun there but they turned into a bunch of party automatons. How do I know that the DLC didn’t undergo a similar metamorphosis? Hillary supposedly belongs to some prayer group. Does that mean I think she’s secretly a fundy nutcase?
There are things the Clintons championed, like welfare reform, that should have gone hand in hand with healthcare reform, that should have changed the nature of the social safety net in America but because they were the first couple to get the Fox News treatment and learned how to deal with it, they are treated like traitors. But there are people who are more than willing to accept the fact that Obama was never going to even try to go up against the right wing.
The bottom line is that the left has been conditioned to hate the Clintons. Part of this comes from their own purity tests. And part if it is due to a very successful propaganda campaign by the 1% from within and outside of the party.
They just can’t see it so they come up with this centrist crap. I can’t take it seriously.
Hillary is a lifelong Methodist. The United Methodist Church has been, since its inception, committed to social activism. It’s founder, John Wesley, also believed that reason has to be part of faith.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~fumchsv/beliefs.htm
Hillary, in the 1990’s, was a member of a weekly women’s prayer group which was connected in some way to The Family which is a batshit crazy, dominionist group that’s very active in DC. I would guess that Hillary did not know exactly what she was getting into when she joined. I don’t think she’s a dominionist by any means but she seems to believe, as I do, that women in western societies are better off than women who can’t go to school, drive cars or show their faces in public which I think accounts for some of her more militaristic leanings.
Hillary has frequently referenced her belief in God and carries a well-worn New Testatment, according to Carl Bernstein.
Lol! She doesn’t carry the old testament? Good for her.
Huh? Chiropractory relies on an occult force? It’s a very simple physical thump in the right place, and if that’s where the problem is, the thump relieves it by putting the vertebrae back on top of each other. Hell, you can take an xray before and after (as well as noticing you no longer have the backache as you walk out of the office).
Chiropractic runs the gamut from what you describe to something that’s supposed to cure everything and ingrown toenails as well as cook breakfast for you. At the rational end, it makes sense, as you say. I’m assuming RD was referring to the other end.
Listen to the podcast. It’s only useful for lower back pain and even at that, it’s no better than what you can achieve with physical therapy and exercise. All the rest of their theories about spinal manipulation? A total crock.
BTW, I didn’t say that chiropractic “medicine” is occult. Go back and read the definition. Only that like unverifiable belief systems, like astrology, the occult, etc, it relies on people to believe in it without any evidence that it works or makes any rational sense. If people want to waste their money on such things, fine. But chiropractic medicine, moxibuxtion, acupuncture and the rest of that alternative medicine shouldn’t be included in a group insurance policy. There is no proof that it works and plenty that it doesn’t.
Chiropractic and accupuncture can both offer immediate relief from pain. I know this because I’ve experienced both. It doesn’t work for everyone all the time but, then, neither do pharmaceuticals.
The difference is that with pharmaceuticals, there’s a lot of very rigorous testing where the pharma has to show efficacy conclusively. I don’t know how many people realize this but only a very small number of new drugs are approved each year, sometimes because of side effect issues and sometimes because the drug isn’t as effective as previously thought. So, over time, you’re going to get more and more potent drugs on the market and you WILL feel better.
Chiropractic “medicine” is not going to get more potent because the whole foundation on which it is built is nonsense. Anything a chiropractor does to make you feel better can be achieved in other ways and they are not the kind of medicine that should be considerd therapy. There is no progression of therapy. It will not repair muscles or strenghthen your spine or anything like that. It’s the equivalent of a massage and can probably help relieve the pressure on a herniated disk. Other than that, their not really helping. The evidence is not there. If they were a drug asking for approval from the FDA, they wouldn’t get it.
You might as well get a massage.
“It’s only useful for lower back pain and even at that, it’s no better than what you can achieve with physical therapy and exercise.”
Maybe some people have the time and application to go the physical therapy route, but a chiropractic snap fixes my backache a lot quicker and cheaper.
As for what belongs in a group insurance policy, imo it’s whatever the group members want to pay for. Different things have good results for different people; what matters is the result, not whether it fits some outsider’s theory.
Sorry. Completely disagree with you. Chiropractic “medicine” is a sham. There’s no reason to visit one, if your insurance policy pays for physical therapy, there’s no reason to go to a chiropractor. Or an acupuncturist. Massage therapists also make your back feel better. At least they’re honest and don’t make claims that can’t be proven. Still, I wouldn’t ask you to pay for my massage.
As for the result, it could very well be attributed to the placebo effect. Since research had proven rather conclusively that chiropracty doesn’t do what it says it does, then I can only assume that people who still insist on believing in it are not a whole lot different than the people who believe in creationism because evolution is just an outside theory.
You either believe in the scientific method or you don’t. There is no halfway. If chiropracty has any useful benefits, research will uncover them. Up to this point, it hasn’t. Accept it or don’t accept it but asking others to help pay for sham treatments is a little like asking us to pay to shark cartilage for cancer patients,
I don’t think chiropractic or acupuncture has any utility beyond the placebo effect, either, but…
“You either believe in the scientific method or you don’t. There is no halfway.”
Hmm, that sounds rather, well, authoritarian–not unlike fundamentalist religious dogma. 😈
*runs* 😛
It’s the procedure we used to determine whether something is true or not. That’s not authoritarian by any means. Quite the opposite.
I will believe Digby has evolved when she restores commenting to all the secretly stealth-banned commenters and when she ends the practice of secret stealth-banning under cover of a studied silence which fails to lend her deceitful banning practices the plausible-deniability which I suppose she imagines her studied silence lends them.
Let her stop running Hullabaloo as a Democratic Party veal pen and I will be satisfied that she has evolved.
Meanwhile I have to wonder whether her displays of “evolving” are meant to string her readers along and offer them a psychological substitute for real opposition to the Obamacratic Party machine.
And I am not pretending her writing is not good. It remains as very good indeed as it ever was, which makes the secret stealth-banning of me and others all the more embittering.
I mean . . . if you ban people, say it up front. Post your rules.
Colonel Lang does it at Sic Semper Tyrranis.
MIQ2XU does it at The Crawdad Hole.
Let Digby do it at Hullabaloo and then I will believe she has evolved, or at least recovered to her prior ethical state before her adoption of The New Deceitfulness.
There. I’m done.
I’m the former Monster from the Id. I decided I wanted a new name.
Whoever banned me over at The Rabbit, er, Crawdad Hole is just as wimpy as Digby. No one at either site showed the guts to tell me I was banned. 😛
It’s not as if I’m dangerous. 😕
There is this one difference over at the Crawdad Hole. Their rules openly state that they can ban anyone or delete any comment they like, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Those don’t sound like very fair rules I guess, but at least they are rules and they are posted.
The difference at Hullabaloo is that Digby didn’t used to ban people and then she started stealth-banning people in sneaky secret while pretending that she didn’t ban people. The two-faced deceit over at Huboo is what makes the difference for me. If I get suddenly banned without warning or explanation over at TCH I won’t be upset in the same way because . . . their own posted rules say they can ban anyone at anytime with no reason, no warning, no nothing. So they are quite openly an “at your own risk” blog. Whereas Hubbelaboo is now a deceitful lying Veal Pen blog which is only effective as a Veal Pen if it can get away with pretending that it is not a Veal Pen.
You?? dangerous?? How silly. You’re as sweet as pie and a pleasure to know.
I’m totally serious.
D’awww, thanx.
All you have to know is that people in the print and broadcast news media dislike the Clintons. They will use anything to lessen their popularity among real Democrats you know, working blue collar types. This includes definitions of Bill and Hillary’s political stance.
The motives for this are orders from their corporate masters, the feeling of superiority because the Clintons were from the South and not some elite East Coast area. (They hated Carter for the same). Or in the case of certain TV hosts and newspaper Op-Ed writers, the hatred of the Irish for their English betters.
How much of it might be simple spite due to the Clinton Administration’s early-days closure of the Press Office? I remember reading that the presspeople found that Office very handy and resented its closure very personally.
I also remember reading that a lot of press people felt that the Gore campaign didn’t put out good-enough free food for the press people, or enough of it; and were spitefully embittered about that all during the Gore campaign.
Read Bob Somerby at Dailyhowler he was dissecting the media long before sites like Mediamatters were up and running. He goes into the tribalism and inside the Beltway cliques that are the news media.
I do notice there is a reluctance for Obama voters to turn to Hillary as a viable alternative. Right now, she is the only viable alternative. Promoting her in place of Obama would be a sensible course correction to revive the Party and the country. Otherwise, we can expect four more years of middle class economic decline. Is she perfect? No. But she is likely better, much better than the current President. I’m willing to take that chance.
This is an uphill climb because the forces which thrust O to the nomination in 2008 will do their level best to ensure he stays there. After all, they know he’s looking out for them.
Voters who don’t have a vested interest in an Obama presidency should consider this move. Get past the identity politics and consider what is really important–the future well-being of American citizens.
Can the Obama-thrusters be identified by name and by social class and by bussiness-sector? If they can be, can they then somehow be targeted for a long campaign of revenge at every level?
Your comment deserves its own post.
You’ve already explained it quite well. Honestly, I would not have considered the Hillary option without coming to this blog. It makes sense, and not from an identity politics viewpoint. She takes seriously her role as leader and sees government as a means to help a struggling population. I don’t get he same vibe from Obama. He’s more about earning cred with his fellow elites, and he doesn’t really care too much about the public. I hate to say it, but its a conclusion I can’t deny.
If he cared as much about governing as he does about the IMAGE that he’s governing, we’d be a lot better off.
He is also working to earn his expected multi-million after-office private sector payoff in return for all his good work for the Financialist Elite.
As I said before, there are too many who were hoodwinked, bamboozled, and given the old okie-dokie in the party elite and the news media that would have to admit to it. They would rather the country go down than admit they were wrong for worshiping at the altar of Obama.
Bill and Hillary know this so don’t expect them to say or do anything. such is their party loyalty though that she may accept the VP slot if offered.
What is it it about men that makes them incapable of understanding exactly why Hillary will never accept VP, not even if the Republican apocalypse was bearing down on us??
A woman like Hillary knows her own worth and abilities. She’s not going to play second fiddle for a guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing. She doesn’t want to get buried. And I think she’s finished with the self-sacrifice for the good of the party. You’re completely wrong if you think she’s the kind of woman who will give and give and give to the party and let it walk all over her.
Unless Obama decides to step aside for the good of the party do not expect Hillary to save his bacon again.
She’s not a symbol.
Hillary’s motive wouldn’t be saving Obama’s bacon but preventing the apocalypse of a Romney presidency. But like I said a lot of news clowns and party elites would have to eat shit first..
Well, then . . . let the Democratic Party make Hillary the Presidential Nominee. Let THEM worry about saving America from the apocalypse of a Romney Presidency. Are the Inner Party Democrats really that afraid of a Romney Presidency? They hold the keys to their own prison.
I hope Riverdaughter is correct about HRClinton never accepting a VP slot. If she did that, decontaminating the Obamacratic scum from the so-called “Democratic” Party would be even more difficult than it already is.
The logic makes sense. Why would Clinton accept a VP slot UNder someone who is her wretched inferior in every way? Simple pride alone would appear to rule it out.
The new thing is that even suggesting a different nominee means I support Romney/Ryan.
I cannot believe how narrow the Democratic Party has become.
I think this falls into the Sticks and Stones category of insult. We know it’s not true but just the act of accusing us is not likely to result in more votes for Obama/Biden, so, I’d be careful.
Well, I’m certainly not swayed by bad logic.
Given: A or B
Then A
or B
if C then FALSE!
Let’s put it this way, if you’re into woo, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously. You’d might as well be a nutcase fundy eschatologist.
The difference between nutcase fundy woo and the acceptable organized woo (mormon, catholic, methodist, muslim) is one of degree, not of kind. So yeah, there’s no reason to take any woo-bird seriously.