You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘history’ tag.
Seems after so many obvious efforts to fix his own primaries last year. Obama is determined to do away with the whole thing – especially in the Hillary voting New York.
earlier this year he ordered some potential candidates for senate to drop off.
and their article. Apparently, after going against Obama on Caroline, Paterson was guilty of misusing the race card
More recently, Paterson went on a rant that racial bias was behind his negative coverage and claimed that Obama was the next target, a charge refuted by Obama’s press secretary.
The situation between Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Paterson has been a complicated one. Mr. Cuomo is still haunted by the fierce backlash he stirred in 2002 when he decided to run in the Democratic primary for governor against H. Carl McCall, the first serious black candidate for governor.
Now, Mr. Cuomo effectively has the blessing of the nation’s first black president to run against New York’s first black governor.
And besides that, primaries for the future are being fixed as well even as we speak
Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine has moved several former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton off a key panel that will determine the party’s rules for selecting a presidential nominee.
After all, as the Daily News announced in the middle of last year’s primary
And therefore, not mine. Ever since I noticed they were throwing out my primary vote last year.
Fresh from infecting previously progressive congresspeople with intent of dropping the public option, the dreaded disease is now taking over the party!
Corrente is noting Bill Moyers profound statements about the corruption of the Democratic party
You really have essentially — except for the progressives on the left of the Democratic Party – you really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country
these narrow interests seem to win, determine the outcomes, no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who has their hands on the levers of powers, these narrow interests determine the outcomes in Washington…
as I was saving these words for posterity, it struck me how conspicuusly absent Obama’s name was from all this. And not that no name was mentioned.
The villain fiend was here again. This is one of two paragraphs dedicated to him:
I think Rahm Emanuel, who is a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama’s re-election will come from the health care industry, from the drug industry, from Wall Street. And so he’s a corporate Democrat who is determined that there won’t be something in this legislation that will turn off these interests
Apparently, not only is Emmanuel holding poor Obama a prisoner in the basement while stomping over progressives and the party’s ideals, but he is obsessed with being re-elected too. Oh wait… Nevermind.
It was a cry of victory amongst B0bots when the RBC gave Obama Hillary delegates in states he didn’t run. Will anyone hold this guy accountable? Ever?
I expected, because of the title
that I would run into another silly lifestyle fluff piece at Wapo, when instead it’s one of the best analysis of Obama I read in a long time (in MSM that is). And because of the lack of Reagan references, took me a while to identify the political POV
The article notices the two possible scenarios for this administration
Yet there’s no question that Obama’s massively ambitious domestic agenda is at a fork in the road: One route leads to Plains, Ga., and early retirement, the other to Hope, Ark., a second term and the revitalization of the American economy.
Although, as far as I recall, even Carter managed to reduce the deficit and championed the Democratic agenda rather than hand the treasurt to the bankers. But the writers feel it’s the choice Obama does make
Obama must be furtively reviewing the history of recent Democratic administrations for some kind of road map out of his post-100-days ditch. So far, he seems to be skipping the chapter on Bill Clinton and his generally free-market economic policies and instead flipping back to the themes and comportment of Jimmy Carter.
And some reasons for the comparisons?
Like Carter, Obama is smart, moralistic and enamored of alternative energy schemes that were nonstarters back when
Oh, I dunno about that one, I guess this betrays the political inclinations of the writers but the next one is better
as with Carter, his specific policies are genuinely unpopular.
As for this one, unless some miracle happened while I was on vacation, the writers are dreaming:
Like Carter, Obama faces as much effective opposition from his own party’s left wing as he does from an ardent but diminished GOP.
The writers do finally see the light when stumbling on the Jr.jr truth:
while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor’s big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame.
They not only bring up policies – civil rights and fiscal that justify this comparison, they even correctly identify resemblance in style – what they refer to as “magical realism”
In the same way that Bush claimed to be cutting government even while increasing real spending by more than 70 percent, Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so.
and give some convincing examples of magical realism:
In the same way that Bush claimed to be cutting government even while increasing real spending by more than 70 percent, Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so. His first budget was titled “A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility,” even as his own projections showed a decade’s worth of historically high deficits. He vowed no new taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then jacked up cigarette taxes and indicated a willingness to consider new health-care taxes as part of his reform package. He said he didn’t want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.
And, because the analysis seems to come from the right (see Margaret Thatcher as source of wisdom), the final advice is startling:
Finally, it’s time to connect the poster boy for hope to the original Man From Hope.
Well, I don’t think this is as easy a task as suggested as Bill Clinton didn’t have TOTUS he could borrow, and he’s still afraid of Hillary.
Besides, one billion dollars has been footed by Obama’s owners precisely to avoid having a Clinton.
But an excellent read nevertheless.
And, will someone tell me please about the cardigans? Was that a Carter thing?
In other countries that is.
They are doing that now in Iran, they did it in 2004 in Servia, they even had a recount that reversed the results in Romania 2004…
For reasons easy to understand, our media doesn’t even bother covering the Iran unrest following the electoral coup
As the Iranian election aftermath unfolded in Tehran–thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest their anger at perceived electoral irregularities–an unexpected hashtag began to explode through the Twitterverse: “CNNFail.”
Even as Twitter became the best source for rapid fire news developments from the front lines of the riots in Tehran, a growing number of users of the microblogging service were incredulous at the near total lack of coverage of the story on CNN, a network that cut its teeth with on-the-spot reporting from the Middle East.
Why would that be, I wonder? Could it be, because Teh One is also the beneficiary of a stolen election and declared he would ignore the unpleasantness in Iran as well?
The Obama administration is determined to press on with efforts to engage the Iranian government, senior officials said Saturday, despite misgivings about irregularities in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Notice how they call them “irregularities” – like they did with Bush’s 2004 “victory” Anyway, the reactions as collected by NYT are THAT cynical
“The U.S. will have to worry about being perceived as pandering to a president whose legitimacy is in question. It clearly makes the notion of providing incentives quite unappetizing.”
Yup. Stolen elections aren’t quite what they used to be… Hey, anyone seen Jimmy Carter?
As for the photo in this post, or the banner of this blog – May 31 2008 in DC – never happened.
And don’t even try to post those photos on facebook – your account will be suspended right away. Without cause.
I am not a fan of Royalty, but I do notice the pattern of the day to do a 1984 on history.
After the self-serving job on Bill Clinton, here comes a new twist where D Day is celebrated by collaborationists while the actual fighters are left out.
The queen, who is 83, is the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II. As Elizabeth Windsor, service number 230873, she volunteered as a subaltern in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. Eventually, she drove military trucks in support roles in England.
And who is participating? TIME refers to a Daily Mail article that sheds some light
Sarkozy’s Hungarian-born father celebrated D-Day by fleeing collaborationist Budapest for Nazi-controlled Germany to escape advancing Soviet troops. The same story also alleges that the family of Sarkozy’s current wife, industrial scion Carla Bruni Sarkozy, had been pretty chummy with Mussolini.
but NYT had the interesting reason
In Britain, commentators have suggested that Mr. Sarkozy did not want to share the telegenic moment when he hosts Mr. Obama.
But of course. We know old women should sit down and shut up…
As for blaming the entire mess on France, I have my doubts on this. Maybe because my memory goes as far as last month. Us old women tend to have this penchant