October 20, 2008
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Get to know Barack Obama
When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing.
Thanks, Barack. By voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State you confirmed my opinion of you as someone who will not come through when it counts. You voted with the entire Republican membership rather than your compadre, Dick Durbin, and the man you supported for president, John Kerry. Your sense of collegiality is ridiculous under the circumstances.
What are all those people who thought you walked on water thinking now? I'm just wondering who's going to whisper in President CandyAss's ear when Condo's busy playing Secretary of State.
And here's a quote from Treacher:
You need to decide, Obama fans: Either this stuff didn't happen, or it happened but I'm not supposed to care. You need to pick one or the other and stick with it.
Check out the archived post.
Anyway. Read this article by Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?. Excerpt:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
Assuming that those last 3 questions weren't entirely rhetorical, the answers are No, No and Hell Yes!.
October 18, 2008
Some Obama douche (but I repeat myself) was on Fox this afternoon saying that McCain had not vetted Joe the Plumber. Vetted. It was like I had taken the red pill, fallen down the rabbit hole, stepped through the looking glass and fallen into a 1960s era Jefferson Airplane acid-amplified video.
WTF? Im serious: WTfuckingF?! Do you vet everyone in this entire country who MIGHT have opinions, or ask questions, that make the One look like a fucking jackass?
Vet the plumber? I feel like vetting someones head with a nail-studded 2×4.
Oh, and if youve checked Ace lately, you know that Team Barry is filing suit against Palin and McCain for trying to prevent fraudulent votes. I dont know what the next step beyond batshit and bugfuck crazy is, but were there now.
Right now, Stalin is crying in his glass coffin because he sees now that he didnt go as far as he could.
Iowahawk takes a break from his usual uproarious stuff to post something dead serious. Excerpt:
Politicians -- Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. -- obviously have to put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it's right there in the jobs description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the cable news cameras. Joe simply had the temerity to speak truth (or, if you prefer, an uninformed opinion) to power, for which the politico-media axis apparently determined that he must be humiliated, harassed, smashed, destroyed. The viciousness and glee with which they set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative Deathrace 3000, and Web 2.0 turned into Berlin 1932.0.
Godwin's Law! you say? if the jackboot fits, wear it.
And here's an image that everyone should stick on their websites. Everyone, that is, who wants to show solidarity with Joe:
October 16, 2008
The real-world campaign involves speeches and proposals and facts and scandals and political positions and news events. These details, however, are becoming increasingly irrelevant, and have become subsumed by the meta-campaign, which consists of perceptions, polls, reactions, analyses and summations. Until very recently, elections were decided by real-world facts -- but not anymore. Facts and events in and of themselves are no longer important; what's important is how everyone reacts to them. And how do we find out the public's mood concerning this or that incident? Why, the media tells us, that's how.
Or so we've been led to believe.
We're all part of the campaign now. Every single one of us. Our opinions, our actions, are bundled together as a group and used as weapons in the race for the White House. When the media reports on what people think, either through public-opinion polling or reportage about anecdotal incidents, it becomes an endless feedback loop, in which the media's representation of most people's purported thoughts is supposed to influence everyone else's thoughts. And then they take another poll to determine how effective the first poll was in influencing public opinion, and the cycle starts all over again. Since everyone now knows that any public expression of their political opinions might be reported by the media, even the most innocent activity becomes a calculated campaign action. Saying how you intend to vote is not simply an expression of how you intend to vote, but rather a component of the public barometer of how the majority intends to vote, which is then used by the media and the blogs to influence everyone else. Nothing is done in all innocence anymore.
One odd thing about public-opinion polls is that there's no way to know if they're accurate or not. Except for a poll taken on the very last day of the campaign, when it can be later compared to the actual vote totals, a poll is a self-supporting statement of "fact" that can only be confirmed or disproven by taking yet another poll -- which is just as unreliable as the first one. We do not have access to some secret hyper-accurate invasion of privacy enabling us to peer into voters' hearts to see how they actually intend to vote, and to use that information to assess the accuracy of a poll. So, if a poll is taken a month ahead of time showing a candidate with a five-point lead, and then a month later he in fact wins the election by five points, we have no way of knowing whether or not the poll was simply accurate, or whether it was originally inaccurate, but fed a public perception that the candidate was in the lead, causing many voters to switch allegiances to him out of a desire to "be on the winning team." Do polls reflect reality, or do they create reality?
The entire Democratic strategy in 2008 revolves around the unproven theory that polls do create reality. Otherwise, there would be no point in continuously striving to inflate Obama's perceived public support.
The real question at the end of the day is this: Are people telling pollsters they're supporting Obama due to normative conformity (which is what I suspect) or due to informational conformity (which is what the Left is banking on)? We won't know until November 4. You can lie to a pollster. But you cannot lie to a ballot.
I hope that Zombie will forgive my taking such an extended entry, but I wanted to make certain that you clicked over to his site.
October 15, 2008
What Im about to say will, if it works out to be true, cause Lawrence ODonnell to have a coronary on Nov. 5. In the immediate aftermath of Kerrys loss to Bush in 2004, ODonnell called for blue states to secede from the Union. So, we will need a volunteer in the blogosphere to stay with ODonnell on election night with a portable defibrillator in order to zap him back to life.
ASSUMING that the pre-election polling is close to accurate, if Obama is leading in the national polls coming out of the final weekend by 52% or less, hes going to lose. If hes at 53% itll probably be very close, but he may still lose. If its 54% or above, he will win. And its not the Bradley Effect.
Why does he have to be that high? Its the revenge of the small-states-on-steroids in the electoral college. The math is actually pretty simple, although some assumptions have to be made about turnout and victory margin in specific states (i.e., that current polls in those states are close to being accurate).
Anyway, time to update my picks:
1) Virgina: I continue to predict that McCain will carry the state, albeit by a 2%-5% margin.
2) Colorado: I still have it in the One's win column. I also stand my prediction that if Obama loses CO, he's done.
3) Florida: McCain wins. Very, very close.
4) Ohio: McCain hangs in an wins by a smaller margin than Bush over Kerry.
5) New Hampshire: I think that I might have been wrong last time. NH will probably stay blue. In fact, I think that NH flipping red would be a sign that Obama should start working on his re-election plans for the Senate. As it stands now, I don't think that will be the case.
6) Pennsylvania: This one has gotten a lot tougher. Polls show a consistent small edge for Obama, but, for some reason, he's spending a lot of time and money there, more than I would think is necessary if the race were already sewn up. And Murtha just called western PA a bunch of racists, which I'm sure will play well in that part of the state. Anyway, I think that Obama probably carries the state by the slimmest of margins, at least right now.
7) The rest of the states remain their election day 2004 color, except for New Mexico, which will flip back to blue.
Oh yeah, those one or two precincts in Nebraska and Maine which cast electoral votes in a non-winner take all manner are probably up for grabs. It would be more than interesting if those two districts actually determined the electoral vote winner.
Where does that leave us as far as electoral votes? I could look it up, but I'm lazy. I will make a final prediction the day before the election. In the interim, I plan to try and ignore politics here just so that I can retain my sanity.
I have always said (even in my more anti-libertarian days) that it always pays to have a libertarian in the room to ask the question "Why, and by what right, should government do this at all?"
That question is asked far too infrequently these days. Pity.
Chris Matthew: OMG, I think that I just came in my pants!
Keith Olbermann: Much like during the vice-presidential debate, I touched myself repeatedly whenever our country's savior spoke.
CNN focus group: Obama's so pretty. And he's going to give me a free pony!
FNC focus group: McCain sounded like a patriot, but looked like a cancer victim. And Barry's going to give me a pony!
Brit Hume: Well, neither candidate made any gross errors. McCain had the edge on facts, but, in this television age, Obama's visual appeal might have swayed the overall score in his favor.
Chris Matthews: I don't understand what he just said because I came again while watching the tape!
Brit Hume: Uh, Chris? Maybe you could go back to MSNBC and help out your co-anchor Keith. He seems to be in some sort of physical distress.
::Keith Olbermann performing homoerotic asphyxiation while watching tape of the debate::
Barring one of the candidates mowing down the audience with a flamethrower, I don't think we'll get much out of the debate.
October 08, 2008
Check out today's www.woot.com product description.
sounds almost exactly like what I heard last night
And here is the image. more...
October 03, 2008
What struck me the most about the debate and it probably helped having quintessential Obamaphiles in the room was how Bidens gravitas is derived almost entirely from the fact that he can lie with absolute passion and conviction. He just plain made stuff up tonight. I read a long list tonight in my debate with Beinart here at Wash U, we can visit the details tomorrow.
Just a few: Flatly asserting that Obama never said hed meet with Achmenijad; that absolute nonsense about spending more in a month in Iraq than weve spent in Afghanistan (let me say it again, he said as if he was hammering home a real fact); the bit about McCain voting with Obama on raising taxes; his vote in favor of the war etc.
Its amazing how the impulse to see Biden as the more qualified and serious guy stems almost entirely from his ability to be a convincing b.s. artist. Im not saying Palin was always honest or unrehearsed, but when she offers up a catchphrase or a talking point, you can tell. When Biden spews up a warm fog of deceitful gassbaggery the response seems to be what a great grasp of the issues he has!
His ability, nay his eagerness, to fake not only the facts but his sincerity is so shameless many pundits seem either mesmerized by it or scared to call him on it. Id call his fakery passive aggressive except its actually just aggressive aggressive. Beyond being a tool of trial lawyers, I never saw much similarity between Biden and John Edwards, but tonight I was really struck by how alike the two are. Edwards fakes being an everyman, and Biden does too. But his real fraud is intellectual seriousness. He talks like an intellectually mature person, but thats all it is talk.
Update: More from Jonah:
And, again, I never said that Palin was pure. My point is that Biden showed himself to an exceptionally facile liar. He makes stuff up with great passion, conviction and seeming command of the substance. So it just bugs me when people say he's better on the substance. I could be a great physicist if I'm not held to a requirement to be factually correct;
"Well, Gwen, that's an interesting question. As we all know the hamster spinning at the earth's core runs in a counter-clockwise direction. Let me repeat that so everyone understands. That hamster does not run in a clockwise direction, that would be madness. It's counter clockwise. That's why our lakes and rivers don't simply turn into a fine mist, and why our atmosphere doesn't simply spontaneously combust. This is something that my dear friend John McCain just doesn't understand. And it saddens me."
October 01, 2008
Ifill: Good evening, America. Tonight is the Vice Presidential debate between the charismatic, experienced, intelligent Senator, Mr. Everyman himself, Joe Biden, and his slow-witted opponent, the former mayor of Wasilla. Now lets begin
Question #1: Senator Biden-can I call you Joe?-, please tell us about how much you love your family and how it pains you to have to leave them for hours every day, riding Amtrak in to DC to do work on behalf of the American people.
Joe Biden: Snakes! Get em off me!
Iffil: Thank you, Joe. Now, former mayor Palin, please explain to everyone why a bubble-headed former beauty pageant runner-up like yourself should even be included in this debate? Please, no mention of I was asked to be on the ticket because youll only embarrass yourself.
Gov. Palin: Gwen, Id first like to say that maybe someone should help Senator Biden.
::Biden beating his head on the podium::
And next, Id like to
Ifill: Times up. Onto the next question.
Gov. Palin: I thought that Id be allowed to respond?
Ifill: HAHAHAHAHA! You thought?! Youre killing me! HAHAHA! ::sniffs, wipes away tears:: Anyway, Senator Biden, please tell us why you graciously allowed to share the stage with this killer of polar bears.
Biden: ::whipping out his junk and shaking it at the camera:: Look! I can go pee-pee like a big boy now.
::proceeds to urinate on stage::
Gov. Palin: Ms. Ifill, isnt this a bit inappropriate?
Ifill: No one cares about your prudish, Puritanical ideas. Now go back to blaming rape victims, or raping them yourself, or whatever you do when your husband isnt incestuously breeding with your gap-toothed offspring.
::another 45-50 minutes or so of this::
Ifill: Now, one final questions for our next Vice President and the stupid bimbo who shares the stage with him. Please tell us, in your own words, why you would make a good Vice President. Sarah, go first.
Gov. Palin: Gwen, Id first like to point out that Im really worried about Senator Biden.
::points at Biden, who has just set his hair on fire ::
And Id like to say that as your Vice President I will-
Ifill: HAHAHAHA! You actually think you can win?! Bitch please! Oh my, but thats funny. Senator Biden, Ill give you the last word.
Biden: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! ::running naked around the stage::
Ifill: Thank you, Senator Biden. And thank you, America.
Chris Matthews: I think that Senator Biden really touched a chord deep within the American people tonight, showing that he was really one of us. Sarah showed that, pretty as she is, she really isnt ready for primetime. Keith?
Keith Olbermann: Id just like to say that I touched myself when Biden ran naked around the stage. And I know that everyone in America was doing the same. Lets just call off the election right now.
Ahh well, it should be an interesting spectacle. It reminds of this old joke about who gets to leave in the lifeboats. The first man is asked how many Titanic passengers survived. The second is asked how many drowned. The third is asked to name them. I kind of think that that is how the debate will go.
September 24, 2008
Is Obama really so stupid that he believes that Bush is merely doing what Obama called for a year ago?
Of course he's not stupid. He's lying. He's pretending that there's no difference between his position then and Bush's (and McCain's) achievement now. He thinks that the American people are so dumb that they will take his obviously-false claims at face value.
Obama ludicrously claimed that running his campaign for the past year is somehow comparable to governing a state. What a laugh! In the campaign, everybody serves at the candidate's pleasure. In the executive branch, most of the employees are under civil service regulations and can't be fired.
If Obama doesn't understand the difference, he really is unqualified to be President, because he clearly doesn't have a clue.
Where and when has Obama taken anybody on in his own party? Where is his vote that flew in the face of his party's discipline, like many of McCain's? Obama liked to claim that McCain voted with President Bush ninety percent of the time. But that means McCain voted against a President from his own party ten percent of the time.
Meanwhile, Obama has voted with the extreme left of his party, right in line with the party leadership, one hundred percent of the time.
That ten percent of McCain's votes that went against his party is actually a remarkable record of independence. One that Obama has never even attempted.
f we wanted to elect a man who yearns for America's defeat and can never admit to making a mistake, we could have elected John Kerry four years ago.
A lot of us really wanted to elect you as America's first African-American president.
But there are things more important to our future than mere tokenism. You should only be our President if you are the best person for the job, and you clearly are not.
We don't need a president who hasn't the courage to admit that his previous policy failed and openly change his mind -- the way President Bush did when he determined to change strategy and execute the surge.
We saw your true colors when you sneered at white middle-class voters who cling to guns and religion because they're bitter, as if an entire class of "those people" can be analyzed and dismissed in a sentence.
McCain was not my choice for President at the beginning of the campaign a couple of years ago, Mr. Obama. You were. I rooted for you. I voted for you as recently as the North Carolina primary.
Obviously, I have changed my mind. Why?
I learned a little more about McCain. I learned a lot more about you.
2. Will race sink Obama?
The problem for Democrats is that the last two elections were decided by less than three points, and this year is that close, so even a small racial vote could tip the balance here. As of September 14, the average of national polls complied by RealClearPolitics.com showed the horserace essentially even. Assuming that undecided white voters will break heavily against the black candidate in the privacy of the voting booth, Obama is actually behind right now. As my former boss, CNN Analyst Bill Schneider used to say, any black candidate below 50 percent in late polls in a two-way race is extremely vulnerable.
#8 Is Obamas support too geographically concentrated? Obama will probably carry New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia by a total of 5 million votes, but in an electoral-college system where each states winner gets all the states delegates (except in Maine and Nebraska), it wouldnt make any difference if he carried these states by one vote each. If the national popular vote is close, that means that McCain is ahead in most other places: Generally speaking, Republican votes are more efficiently spread across the small states of the Heartland. By carrying battleground states by one percent or less, McCain could win the election without winning the popular vote.
I made point #8 to some friends recently about the popular vote versus the electoral college. States like CA, NY and MA have become even more Democratic the last few years, meaning that a Lamppost-D would probably win a huge majority of votes in those states. However, those votes do not translate to other states, meaning that a handful of states will almost definitely decide the election. I don't have a feel overall on how things will go, but I'll make a stab at a couple of states:
1) Virgina: I predict that McCain will carry the state, albeit by a small margin. Fairfax County, a Democrat stronghold, has grown a lot the last few years. However, polls in VA historically under count that final GOP vote tally by 5%-8% (Dole was behind by a couple of points, but won by 4% against Clinton). Even if that discrepancy is now down to 4%, McCain will almost certainly win the state's electoral votes if polls going into election day show him within 2%-3% of Obama.
2) Colorado: Right now, I think that Obama will probably win the state's electoral votes. If he does not, I think that it's over for Obama. The possibility exists that the debates will cause a shift, or Joe Biden will make another spectacularly Bidenesque gaffe to turn the tide, but I'll go with my gut.
3) Florida: McCain wins here, unless he goes on an axe-wielding rampage in a retirement community.
4) Ohio: It's gonna be close, but I think that McCain wins here as well. Too many 2nd Amendment voters live in that state, I believe, for Obama to win. Also, I think that we could see a 1%-2% Bradley/Wilder (for us VA residents) effect at play.
5) New Hampshire: This one's tight and could go either way. I might change my mind, but McCain is popular in this state and I think that it will flip into the GOP column.
6) Pennsylvania: If the election were today, McCain would almost certainly carry it over the "no clean coal" ticket. Also, there are a large number of blue collar Democrats in the state who appear to be less than fond of Obama, although this group's antipathy will be offset quite a bit by the fact that the state is strongly pro-union. Kerry won PA by a narrow margin over Bush in 2004 and I would normally expect a similar result this year. However, the anti-coal message of the Democratic ticket, the anti-elitist sentiment against Obama, combined with, again, a small Bradley/Wilder effect will flip this state to McCain by a slim, slim margin.
7) The rest of the states remain their election day 2004 color.
That's my political analysis of how the race stands TODAY. How it will look after the debates is anyone's guess. Also, I have way of predicting what national and/or world events might occur before election day that could influence the race. I'll revisit this analysis right before the election and, afterwards, compare it to the actual election results.
Update: I almost forgot: I think that New Mexico will flip back to blue this year. Just an FYI.
September 23, 2008
1) The 50 state campaign was a fool's errand. Obama, not being a fool, is concentrating on the 10 states likely to decide the election.
2) I still don't like McCain the politician; actually, I loathe him, although I respect him both as a man and for his service to this country in the time of war. However, I like Gov. Palin a great deal.
3) Those of you who continue to claim the Palin is unqualified for Veep while simultaneously claiming that Obama IS qualified for President are, to be blunt, full of shit and fooling no one. The best quote that I've seen on the topic is from a liberal commenting over at Rick Moran's site:
Note to my fellow Obama supporters:
Obama has accomplished essentially nothing in the public sphere. Its a fact. Live with it.
My reasons to support Obama over McCain are 1) I prefer Obamas positions to McCains, 2) I think Obama will do a better job of uniting the country, 3) I think McCain is a man of the past and Obama is a man of the future.
Stop pretending Obama is something hes not. Its waste of time and youre playing a losing game.
The appropriate response to accusations about Obamas lack of experience is to laugh and say, You gave up that argument when you nominated the mayor of Wasilla. And then talk policy.
I'd quibble about his final sentence comparing the Dem #1 to the GOP #2, but he's pretty much spot on otherwise.
September 05, 2008
John Scalzi and I differ quite a bit politically, but he's always given the impression of being a decent guy, and not just at his book signings. Anyway, he makes the following comment, which I think everyone should read:
And at the end of the proverbial day, this election is the guys who are the headliners: about McCain and Obama, and their policies and plans, or lack thereof. One of these guys is a rock star, and the other isnt and to be honest, I hope that doesnt matter, either. What should matter, and what I hope will matter, is the substance of the two candidates. Substance is not what people come to rock stars for. But it should be what we look for in a president.
Update: He also doesn't take kindly to anyone, regardless of political stripe, crapping in his sandbox:
Also remember that this site gets lots of people of all sorts of political persuasion visiting, including persuasions that arent mine, and I see that as a feature, not a bug. Also, you know what? Each of them are my guests. Please dont be rude to my guests. Because then I might be compelled to be rude to you. And as we all know, Im really good at being rude.
I've seen Mr. Scalzi angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.
He's McCain; what else can you say. You may not like him, but it will be hard to meet anyone half the man he is.
September 02, 2008
September 01, 2008
ne of them is little more than an elegant, attractive, dare I say sexy piece of eye candy.
The other one kills her own food.
Related update Related because I say so. From KP:
Dems have been comparing Palin to Joe Biden and laughing derisively at the contrast. But for some reason, the comparison between Obama and McCain - who are light years apart in terms of experience - doesn't incite the same level of concern or condescension.
I actually buy the Obama camp's original argument that Washington experience isn't the only thing that matters. Life experience, thoughtfulness, intellectual curiosity, a willingness to listen and learn, shared values and an ability to inspire and communicate - all count as much.
The jury is still out on Palin but the argument that Washington experience isnt the most important criteria still holds true, even if you have ovaries.
August 28, 2008
8:48PM If Colorado isnt in play, I planned on voting for Bob Barr. But Obama is being so dishonest tonight that Im tempted to vote for McCain out of spite.
8:47PM Obama just had the gaul to claim that he wont challenge McCains character. Its not HIS fault that McCain is evil.
8:45PM Tough, direct diplomacy! I negotiate in your general direction!
8:44PM Strained our oldest alliances. Like all those right wingers recently elected in France and Germany and Italy who see our side more and more?
8:42PM Did Obama REALLY just accuse McCain of being unwilling to pursue bin Laden? I dont like McCain. I dont (yet) plan to vote for McCain. But I would NOT go around impugning John McCains manhood.
I told my wife that political conventions have all the honesty of used car salemen
and all the spontaneity of Broadway musicals. She asked, "So how else are people supposed to know what the candidates say?" I responded that I don't care what they say; I pay attention to what they do. Of course, I'm a political junkie and pay attention to these things. She pointed out that most Americans don't pay any attention at all and therefore get easily persuaded by these dog and pony shows. Sadly, she is absolutely correct. Here are the likely responses to convention speeches:
1) He's/She's pretty.
2) Gee, that sounded good. Maybe I can get a free pony, too!
3) Yeah, he/she is going to create 5 million new jobs. [ed. note: this was called vaporware back when I was a programmer]
Fuck, I'm depressed. I expect to be no less depressed watching the GOP bullshit next week.
Update: Via Ken in the comments comes this doozy:
MOOSEBURGERS FOR EVERYONE!
And via Gerard comes little doozy:
"The smart liberals are worried. The dumb ones think they've won."
I've been reading a lot of dumb liberals today.
Final update: From in the tank for Obama land:
For me, the more I think about it, the more this pick is about McCain's contempt for Obama. He really seems to think that Palin is as qualified as Obama to be president.
I know that Andrew isn't really that stupid and it's just his man crush forcing him to say stupid shit like this. The Palin pick might well not work out, but trying to pretend that Obama's 150 days in the Senate followed by 2 years campaigning for president makes him magically qualified to be president isn't wishful thinking, it's absolutely bathshit insane. Then again, this IS Andrew we're talking about.
However. As much as I understand the "our guys are great/your guys suck" mood after each speech is given, I simply cannot fathom the complete disconnect from reality at places like BugFuckCrazy Juice. To hear John Cole tell it, unlike many actual Democrat strategists, the convention has been such a dandy success that the coming "disaster" of the GOP convention will only further cement the Obamamessiah's lead among the electorate. And while I know that Cole is completely in the tank for Obama to the point that he neglects to remove The Chosen One's cock from his mouth while typing, I'm still amazed at what idle drool he assumes is intelligent analysis. In fact, about the only thing he said that makes sense is the fact that the Republican base is not excited about voting for McCain, something so obvious that it probably took Mr. Cole only a month or so to figure out.
Even as someone who plans to vote 3rd party this year, I've got to say that the thought of how unhinged OlberCole would become if their Greek God manages to lose to McCain does make me smile. Watching the ensuing meltdown would almost be worth being forced to live through a McCain presidency. Almost.
25 queries taking 0.0399 seconds, 84 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.