As you know, and you might be sick of hearing me talk about it by now, I'm an Obama fan.
However, I'm not one of those people who support Obama because they think Hillary is just a "B***".
I respect her, but I think Obama is by far the better candidate.
That being said I wanted to share some humor out of the Clinton campaign with you all. The problem is that none of this was meant to be funny.
First of, a supporters' YouTube video that's meant to counter the many stirring Obama videos that have reached millions of young people by now.
Judge for yourself, but I think it inspires me almost as much as a rusty doorknob does. It has a very high "Up with People" level.
Then we also learned that Bill Clinton argues that Hillary has done excellent in the primaries, considering that she is "operating on a shoestring". She raised $140 million.
I hereby volunteer to drive Bill Clinton around in some areas in Rock Hill, SC, where I was campaigning for Obama during the SC primary. I visited people there that lived in totally dilapidated houses with "port-a-potties" by the side of the road because they didn't have any sewer access. I'll let them explain to Mr. Clinton what a shoestring budget really is.
Calling $140 million for a political campaign a shoestring budget is the kind of Washington-speak we have tolerated too long. It's time for a change of the guard.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Clinton's are funny?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
OK.
How long until we see a parody? My money is on Tuesday.
Anyone else?
Monday afternoon?
What about Obama makes him the better candidate?
Sam:
How much time do you have? I could write a whole book filled with reasons on why Obama is the better candidate.
I'll keep things short by telling you what made me decide about a year ago between Edwards, Obama and Clinton. The reason back then was the war in Iraq.
I couldn't possibly support a candidate who gave Pres. Bush the authorization to use military force in Iraq.
I knew, Obama knew and with me millions of people across the world knew that the reasons for going in there were totally bogus.
If I could figure that out back then, why couldn't Hillary or Edwards? I would hope that the next President is at least as smart as me, preferably smarter.
This was such a humongous mistake that I can't support anyone who went along with it. What other mistakes will they make?
Since then I've found many other reasons to support Obama, one of them being that he shares My concern over the role money plays in American politics.
Until now, elections look more like auctions and we need to go to a system of public campaign financing asap. It's a system that i know very well back from the time I was politically active in Belgium and it works really well.
Obama supports public campaign financing and has not accepted any money from federal lobbyists. Hillary has raised more money from lobbyists than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.
Finally, it's obvious that the country is dying for some big political changes. Who do you think can bring that change most effectively, someone who's been embedded for decades in the Washington game playing or someone who thinks we ought to change the whole game?
What are we electing here? A faith healer?
Obama has turned into Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Benny Hinn all rolled into one. Add in a touch of Elvis Pressly's flair and you've got Obama nailed down.
Obama is an out and in front socialist whose ideals run more in line with Karl Marx or Fidel Castro.
Yet in spite all the nonsense he's spewing about the evils of status quo politicians and the political system, he sets himself apart how? By missing every controversial vote in the senate in the past 9 months? By voting present what like 100 times?
Aside from the claims of his fawning, cult like supporters, how exactly doe he differ 1% from Edwards or Clinton.
Edwards blames corporations for every ill in society. Clinton blames Bush and Obama blames the system in general.
All three of them have their scapegoats...
Aaron, lay off the moonshine man.
You sure have some serious mood swings now and then, because up until recently you seemed to like Obama.
A politician can finally inspire a lot of people and you call him a faith healer? I thought your problem with politicians was that they're usually a very non-inspiring bunch?
If you still don't see what sets Obama apart from Hillary you might read the comment I posted right above yours, I'm sure you can find a few differences in there already.
And if you don't understand Obama voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate,you don't understand how politics in Illinois works. I suggest you start reading up about that as well.
Obama didn't participate in every US Senate vote recently because he actually is campaigning now and then, Imagine that.
He's doing a lot better than some other Senators who are running for the Presidential office though. If you have a problem with Senators missing votes because they're running for office, I suggest you start lobbying for legislation to bar Senators from running for any other office. Good luck with that.
Finally you seem to think it's wrong to say the political system is broken...
And this comes from a Libertarian???
No, Actually, I DO like the fact that folks are getting interested in politics again. But if you look at Obama and Paul, they are both attracting the wrong folks.
I call it the Snakes on a Plane theory.
We all remember how much hype that piece of Hollywood Garbage got. In the end,it sucked but so many people bought into the hype that it was too late to return the ticket.
That's been my question about Ron Paul all along and more recently Obama.
I'd take Obama more easily that Clinton. Don't get me wrong, both of them are on the "government knows best" side of the line. I'd take Obama because he's naive enough that most of his ideologies will be twisted to fit the status quo of lobbyists and power brokers to keep us from turning into USSR Version 2.0. But mostly, I'd take Obama over Clinton because he's never out and out lied to my face like his esteemed opponent.
Obama is a dark horse candidate. No one knows what he really believes. Especially those college freshmen girls fainting at his rallies. Only folks who payed attention before he threw his hat in the ring seem to care about the fact that he's dodged the Iran Rev. Guard, Military Budget and "Economic Incentive" votes because he was "running" for president.
I'd love to work at a place where I could shop for a new job whilst getting a full paycheck for doing nil but it ain't gonna happen.
The point is, if this is all we have, the choice between a kooky libertarian and a political virgin: What the hell does that say about our "options?"
Hey, I'm not on moonshine, or even weed (Can you believe it? A libertarian not on drugs!)
I'm just reverting back to my cynical self. Folks just need to read between the lines: No matter who's writing the book.
I'm just reverting back to my cynical self.
It must be lonely in your world.
If you're not willing to believe in any politician anymore because they're "all the same", then why are you interested in politics? WHy do you still vote?
I actually do believe that there are still people out there that get into politics to make a positive change. If I wouldn't, then why would I be interested in politics?
By the way, calling Obama a communist makes as much sense as calling Ron Paul a nazi.
Although I'm sure by your standards every country outside the US is communist because every western country except for the US has universal health care.
You're right, I was mistaken. Obama isn't a communist. He's a statist who borders on facist.
I've always been cautiously optimisitic about the plight of american politics.
But it's becoming increasingly obvious that American's in general just seem too damned dumb to understand even the most basic logical thought processes anymore.
Class envy has replaced sound econimic principles. Common Sense has been replaced by political promises to fix everything.
These day's you're either preaching to the choir or attempting to teach conceptual physics to chimpanzees. There simply is no middle ground.
I honestly feel sorry for Liberals these days. It must suck real bad to wear your hearts on your sleeves and have to constantly play the worlds smallest violins for every down trodden soul who crosses your path.
Sometimes it really is better to be a cynical asshole. At least you can get through a work day without shedding a crocodile tear for the starving children in wherever they don't have foodstamps or the sick old ladies wherever they don't have medicare...
Well Aaron, have fun being a "cynical asshole" while the rest of us try to make a change.
Aaron - Fine, I'll admit it.
I stayed up late last week to watch Snakes on A Plane if only for that one line...
And for a week, it was part of my internal dialog.
Thierry - While I agree with you the cynicism is the bastion of the intellectually lazy: there are plenty of ways to affect change (even large-scale change) without being political.
Maybe the two of you are just more optimistic than I am. Maybe I'm just plain wrong. Either way, in my mind, it doesn't matter who wins this election.
As usual, we're gonna be left with a lesser of two evils choice. Look at 92,96,2000 and 2004. All of the candidates were lesser of two evils choices. This year is shaping up to be the same for me.
"Do I vote for the guy who's gonna increase government control by 200 percent or the guy who's gonna increase it 400 percent?"
Not the most appealing choice is it?
Well, I guess if you like nanny states then you're swimming in ecstacy but I've already got a mommy and daddy.
Thierry- You're missing the point. Obama and Hill Dawg all love the same things. Where's the change in that?
Justin- It's the 20th of February. Please change the date on your "Smarmy Phrase of the Day" calendar. By my calculations "Intellectually Lazy" is on said calendar for February 11th.
On a side note: I too have caught myself using said catch phrase. It reminds me of a day when Samuel L. wasn't in EVERY stinkin' movie on the planet.
"Which wallet's yours?"
"The one that says Bad Mutha-F#$*ker on it!"
Could we please hear your response to this?
http://www.drudgereport.com/
I presume you're wondering about the turban picture?
My answer would be this and this , especially the pictures on the bottom of that last one.
What you're watching are the desperate outbursts of another campaign that knows it's losing. It's quite hilarious actually and I'm sure there's more to come.
Post a Comment