You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 3, 2008.

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Of course, I wrote a while ago about his reversal on ending the war but it seems it now hits the larger consciousness – so it’s worth noting.

As NYT gingerly puts it, He MIGHT Refine Iraq Timeline (or as the Iraqi PM said

Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security

Of course, this was over there – and what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq. So, what was his rationale for “refining” his raison d’etre a candidate?

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.”

That’s a new one! I am pretty sure I heard him in debates saying that it’s a CIC decision to make and Bush cannot shift responsibility to the commanders on the ground. But than again, that was Bush. This is Bush 2.0

And let’s revisit Bill Clinton’s “racist” questions

“While Senator Obama campaigns on his plan to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. We saw this with NAFTA as well,” Clinton said.

Oopsie! Bill knew what he told Iraqis! What a racist!

and earlier signs of this

Here’s the NY Sun piece, for the record.

So how many combat brigades is he going to withdraw, and in what time frame? Does he even have a clue? Yeah, I know the answer to that: It’s “hell no.”

And funny thing, it seems McCain made him do it

Now, why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the President of Iran, but hasn’t yet sat down with General Petraeus — the leader of our troops in Iraq?

Posted Image
Where’s your “progressive” candidate now , ers?
Posted Image

Wall Street Journal went and drew the right conclusion from the many flip-flops:

We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

Of course, WSJ seems also ignorant that B0 already reversed himself on ending the war and is anticipating it:

Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany. Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.”

The tone of the article is snarky and Murdoch who owns WSJ had been very helpful to B0 so far.

Is this reverse psychology to reassure the many Wall street investors who funded Bo more than McCain? or is it the definite sign the worm is turning and the media returns to their rightful owner?

Whatever the intent, the title and a lot of the content are solid facts.

Posted Image
Where’s your “progressive” candidate now , ers?
Posted Image

Anyone can run against a good candidate and appear ahead – if he media is cooperating.

No qualifications necessary. I know it because I saw this show twice: this primary and Bush vs Gore 2000 (I left Bush vs Kerry out because incumbency added an advantage to the still “nobody: that W was)

It’s not as well known – since not covered by the media – but Gore did actually had support and huge rallies to which he was delivering
good substantial speeches.
The next day, W would stage another event (probably busing people
over) and will delivered a watered down, vague version of
whatever Gore just said “Of course we want health care”
“Of course we’ll keep our promise to our seniors re: Social Security”
Notice how I know what he said but not what Gore said
as only one candidate was covered, the other was mocked.(see the threat of DMHO for excellent analysis of that)
B0 did the same – and the debates were quite revealing in
that respect. The one time he got asked questions first, he bombed and the ABC moderators trashed by all for exposing the hoax.
Now that he can’t say “what she said” anymore, he’s reverting to his true neocon persona. Followers are shocked. Shocked,


beyond the absurd length to which they go to control speech, this is not just paging Dr Freud, but screaming for a whole clinic in Vienna!

“I know I ed up, but sane people can’t say that to me – because I love my padded cell and my asylum inmates. And this finally gives us a chance to check credentials

Are you now or have you ever been?

(a non-worshiper)

How did we get to this??

A month didn’t even pass since the “clinching” and my, how the things have changed!The unassailable Messiah has shed his sheep clothing revealing the ruthless W 2.0 I knew hid underneath.By now the koolaid bunch who was calling Hillary a republican can’t pretend it’s not there – there’s dissent in the ranks. Arianna calls B0 “New Coke”, Kos confesses “I never gave him money and won’t until he becomes good again” and most satisfying, Vastleft unendorsed him.

Even a certain forum I shall refer to as DUH that systematically banned supporters for other candidates through the primaries, then outlawed any criticism of THE CLINCHER upon the clinching, has to adjust to a post flip-flop world

The flock grows restless, so, rather than lose them all to places where they can speak freely – a free speech area has been cordoned (not unlike the one in Unity, NH).

Not everyone can make it in the Free Speech area: only those who supported BO through the primaries!

If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama’s candidacy.

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

Not sure what kind of proof is needed – but the message is clear:


This is apparently to get rid of

some jerks who refuse to get beyond the primary.(a minority).

Member Avatar

And also, gives the restless crowd something to chew on – it appears McCain is a bit stringy for their young teeth. I don’t think the Unity Pony is more popular on DUH than it is in PUMAland. It feels, shall we say...unfinished?quarter20horse.gif picture by Robbedvoter

So, more bannings, more celebrations of the bannings – more temporary illusion of at least being in control if not being right anymore….Because at least for one day, they can once again be angry at the “Hillbots” instead of themselves and the candidate that made fools of them.

As usual, that place is a drop of water which reflects what’s in store for us if they take over

Update as of July 6 – the logical consequence:


Posted Image

Not Your Sweetie