Best of the Fray

Bravo, FB.

Lunesta — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:18:07 GMT

I just wrote the same thing to him below, about him not really liking Hillary Clinton at all, whle continually protesting that he does. (You said it far more smoothly, for which I thank you.) One of the saddest pieces of BOTF fall-out during this whole nasty Dem. primary / caucus business, has been the noticeable decline in quality of posting, thinking and writing by some of our formerly best posters & writers. Sad to say, The Ducster leads the pack, which I do (really, really) regret. You & Dawn have posted some of the best and finest (high-quality) support pieces on behalf of HRC that I have seen around here and for that, I thank you both. "L."

Nor is Bill Clinton ...

Lunesta — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:08:54 GMT

"A relic of a century long behind us?" "Long behind us?" 7.5 years? And he and Al Gore brought us some of the best years of our lives, so to speak. Ingratitude piled on top of unrealistic insanity -- you have drunk very, very deeply of the well of Obamanite Kool-aid, indeed. Have you ever looked at the website of WJC's Foundation and familiarized yourself with his current programmatic activities? You are over the top and again, unrecognizable in your bizarre claims on behalf of The Unqualified One. And no, you don't like Hillary, no matter how many times you proclaim that you "really, really do." If you did, you would stop attempting to smear HER with his supposed errors of his ways. It is posts like this that drive the oft-quoted "25% of Hillary supporters" to tell pollsters they just may not be able to bring themselves to vote for Obama come November, should it come to that. Which I hope to heck it will not. P.s. your pun, above, is offensive and misogynistic.

He won't reply, Jason.

Lunesta — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:52:25 GMT

He's afraid to acknowledge the truth of what you & jeqal have said. There is a lot of anti-White undercurrent in much of Michelle Obama's remarks, as well. The pro-BO BOTFers simply refuse to admit it. And of course, in addition to the examples you provide here, there's all that anti-White sentiment in so many of the Rap & hip-hop "songs" and "music" as well. Woolley has got his Denial head so deeply hidden in the sand, he wouldn't denounce OBAMA if BO were proven to be Hitler; he would find a way around it & somehow try to 'defend" either of them.

fasco-liberal?

Woolley — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:27:36 GMT

Is that a drive through eatery dishing up lattes and quiche? Where do you get these absurd ideas? I have seen it all now.

Re: Suggestion for Obama supporters

Patcgm — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:26:56 GMT

I agreed with everything you wrote except the part about voting for him if he denounced them.At this late date who could believe anything he said?

Re: A narcissistic politician? Heavens!

jeqal — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:17:35 GMT

hehe

Thanks Fielding

What I mean by that is that it is a narcissism that he does not see. It is a flaw because when it is nibbled at he reacts very negatively, which makes it worse, I think.

fasco-liberal because he's an odd mix of idealism and marxist ideals. I view Marx more from a dialectical standpoint and am cautious when it is presented as progress, because of it's historical implications.

passive-aggressive because he takes out his anger in ways that makes it difficult for someone to fight back with, it generally ends with, grandma, 10 year old boy, their fault, staff fault, hillary's fault, media's fault. Within that is "you are doing this to hurt me, or they are doing that to hurt us", it creates an odd loyalty or an odd dislike, that can't be fully explained. It does create stands though, but it also creates fear where no fear previously existed.

But you are correct of course, and I see whare that could be pretty annoying actually.

And of course politicians have egos, good ones want to believe that they are doing good, bad ones egos come from others believing that everyone thinks they are great. The more popular of the first sort have both, and it is what led to Clinton's issues, which he has detailed in interviews.

The reason why tried presidential hopefuls are more comfortable to me, is that with any luck their egos have had to be checked already.

I am leaning more and more towards Isolationism, the idealism being tossed around makes me think that maybe we need to cut the banks off and just nurture the idealism for a time, until it is time to come out of the oven.

_____________________

to snolly, I don't find assassination jokes especially funny and I don't click on those links. There were 4 men that I can think of that were assassinated, and a few of those men had men around them who died as a result of the assassinations. I find that a bad time, it is one reason why I dislike NOI as I am a fan of Malcolm X, the wonderful thing about M is that he was maturing and detailing his maturity, as he was growing, who knows he might have been the first AA in office.

_________________________

I also know that the idealism of everyone in the world living like America does is not practical. We are not in the top 270 nations in the world in population density. We have a lot of resources in the US.

What allows the US to be a democracy is our limited population and our plentiful resources. As the one increases and the other diminishes we will have the same problems every other country in the world has.

It's wonderful to believe everyone can be like us, but before that can happen the model has to be similar enough to be practical.

why?

Snolly G — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:35:54 GMT

because the only good black activist is a dead black activist.

A narcissistic politician? Heavens!

FieldingBandolier — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:22:44 GMT

I appreciate your attempts to point out Obama's flaws. It certainly seems as though many of his supporters have been far too willing to overlook his many flaws, and I share your concern that these same flaws pose a significant risk to his presidential prospects (and, by association, the fortunes of the Democratic party).

However, calling home a Fasco-liberal, idealistic, passive-aggressive narcissist is hardly helpful. If we're going to start name-calling, there are plenty to go around for all candidates - including the one you support.

Stick to the facts, give them an honest analysis, and use that to persuade people. Otherwise, you just alienate people, which though it affords an unmistakable (though base) satisfaction, and allows those of a similar position some vicarious satisfaction as well, it's a poor strategy for someone who is in a minority position; the people you are alienating are the ones whose majority vote is going to lead to your disappointment. Being right, down the road, will be of little satisfaction to you, especially if you come to understand that you might have been part of the problem yourself.

Just sayin'.

Re: So basically what you're saying is...

jeqal — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:10:01 GMT

yeah agreed he has been using spin and image manipulation but no not what I'm saying.

What I said was this:

Obama is a wimp. His narcissism will be the DNC's downfall. He lashes out by doing obviously dishonest things, which might get him points with the criminal element but not so many points from hard-working Americans who try not to be dishonest if at all possible.

The next thing that I'm saying is that Hillary is being too soft on him, and that this guy can't handle it. His ego won't allow it. He is unrealistic to the point of it being either ideology or idealistic

Fasco-liberal, idealistic, passive-aggressive, narcissisticist

FLIPAN

That is more like what I'm saying, thanks for calling me on it.

So basically what you're saying is...

FieldingBandolier — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:56:09 GMT

Obama's acting like an American politician.

That's probably a good thing, because odds are, he's going to be the Democratic nominee, and he's going to have to know how to use spin and image manipulation if he has any shot at all of winning the White House.

Isn't he?

Re: Fielding Bandolier / Ducadmo

jeqal — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:51:36 GMT

I'm just going to post this youtube url....Obama uses Hillary's name as much as his own in campaign ads, he also has been politicking as President in his campaign spots, I find that a bit ummmm, I don't even know what to think, I think it is a move to get us off his bad show in the debate

Youtube link that shows Obama's bizarre campaign strategy, his staff has even been using falsified citations to prove their point, which up until now has not needed regulation but after this one should qualify for jail time imo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8M_EICmkMo

Another Youtube video that has pundits talking about Obama's bad Debate and his worse after the debate showing.

"Obama seemed to be angry and bitter"

The debate oddly enough had MORE issues than any of the other debates, the only difference is that Obama was asked harder questions in this debate than the other debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87RIyw-pTjo

Yes, and an explanation...

FieldingBandolier — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:47:48 GMT

would explain stuff.

A summary

ducadmo — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:46:11 GMT

would be shorter.

That is what I was thinking

biteoftheweek — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:02:08 GMT

Lets just summarize for a moment.

FieldingBandolier — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:57:46 GMT

ducadmo: I don't see much difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

FB: I don't get that at all. Can you provide some examples, like, from policy positions?

ducadmo: I don't really pay any attention to that policy stuff. Here's the deal - she's like McCain. Neither has a plan for the economy, Hillary's health care plan won't make it through congress [Sorry - this is like McCain how?], Clinton wants to "talk tough" on Iran like McCain does, while Obama has a much better plan for ~~providing legitimacy to despots~~ shoring up relations by conducting direct talks between heads of state. Any other questions?

FB: Well yes, actually. Here's one analyst who seems to feel Hillary's proposals are superior to Obama's. There's reason to think that compromising too much on healthcare, though it might get legislation passed, is worse than doing nothing, Bill would make a great Secretary of State, history shows he's unlikely to play escalating brinksmanship games with Iran, and last - what's with all the Hillary hating, anyway? You haters sound a lot like Newt Gingrich in the old days.

FB: Oh, and some more information. Here are some links showing the many similarities in position between Obama and Hillary, and here are some that indicate Hillary's positions are somewhat more progressive. Even people who've shown clear bias against Hillary concede she knows more about what she's talking about that Obama. Liking Obama is fine, but making up fictitious reasons for liking him better than Clinton is, well, dishonest. Oh, and saying she's a lot like McCain is ludicrous.

ducadmo: Oh, Hillary's not that bad - I actually like her. I don't trust her husband because he got an illicit blowjob, and then didn't want to tell the world about it. I don't review evidence I disagree with, so, tough nut on the links. The problem with Hillary (where Democrats and Republican's agree) is that she promises more than she can deliver.

[Doesn't respond to the other supportive information, presumably consistent with the assertion that doesn't like to read things that contradict his opinions]

FB: Wow, you sure said a lot of nothin'. What do you care about blowjobs other people got, anyway? Nobody in the broader world seems to. Obama also promises more than he can deliver [just like every other politician who has ever run for office, I might add]. You say you like her, but then you act like you don't, and you don't really explain why. I think you're being intellectually dishonest - just like the other Hillary hatin' Obama love children.

ducadmo: Oh, I don't mind the blowjob, it's just that her husband was unable to appease all those people who were making a concerted, no-holds-barred effort to undermine his presidency at any cost. On top of that, he is dangerous in his non-dangerousness. Hillary isn't non-dangerous, because she argues too much, which is fine for a senator. Like I said, I don't expect anything different from her than McCain.

FB: [new response] Why don't you go back and review this thread again, and see if you can identify any supporting evidence (at all) for your assertion that Hillary Clinton is like McCain. While you're at it, you might want to take a look at the contrary evidence I provided (even though it makes you uncomfortable).

I'm glad you like Obama - he's a very likable guy. But there's a difference between liking a candidate and manufacturing post-hoc rationalizations for why he's better than a competing candidate, and that difference is important; by portraying Hillary Clinton in such a manner, you exacerbate the rift developing within the Democratic party, because the people who support her can so clearly see the fictitious confabulation, and how little it resembles reality. All I'm asking you to do is to be rational about it.

I'd say the same to Hillary supporters who are painting Obama as some kind of creep. Obama looks to be a fine candidate, his inspirational qualities are a big plus, and I'd gladly vote for him [and if you won't, you're being as ridiculously irrational as Duc here - look at the evidence. Please.]. My biggest concern about Obama is that I don't think he can beat McCain. This is an issue I really hope I'm wrong about, because it's looking increasingly likely that this will be the matchup.

As Demos noted awhile back, Hillary's negatives are all known - they've been out there for years. Despite these, she's actually quite close (albeit likely not close enough) to winning the nomination. Obama's negatives are only just starting to emerge (and Hillary's been quite easy on him, really). The Republican political machine is remarkably adept at manipulating image, and they haven't even really gotten to work on Obama yet. Watch and see what happens (and watch McCain, the born-again conservative, drop his bible and begin competing for the center again).

You're free to disagree - in fact, you should. But Duc, can you please (please) be rational about it? Can you come up with something more substantive than "Oh, I really like her, I just don't like her husband"? Cause if you can't, I'd say there's another bias at work that you're, for whatever reason, unwilling to acknowledge or examine.

And that really is dishonest.