home

NY Times Excerpts From "The Obamas"

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 12:18:22 PM EST
Tags: Michelle Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times has excerpts from the the book, "The Obamas." The book, which will be published Tuesday, devotes many pages to the role of Michelle Obama. Shorter version: She gets frustrated with her husband's staff at times and she is Obama's biggest supporter. So what else is new?

Glenn Greenwald's takeaway:

Reading this Jodi Kantor excerpt makes one think things may have been better if Michelle Obama had been Chief of Staff:

< Lori Berenson Returns to Peru to Finish Parole | Saturday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Times Excerpts From "The Obamas" | 200 comments (200 topical)
    I only read (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    page four but my takeaway is that neither Obama is wild about living in DC or the presidency. This kind of backs up what some of the pundits have been saying for quite a while.

    And this just leads to (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    the obvious question- why did he actually run for the Presidency, then?

    Parent
    I've wondered (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:17:07 PM EST
    the same thing many times. He seems to have no political bearings and no policy objectives that he wants to meet. I think he just likes campaigning and speechifying. Now that I've read the whole article, it's kind of interesting that Michelle realized that his political team needed to go back in 2010 but Obama would not get rid of them. Both of them realized that the 2010 midterms were going to be a bloodbath for the party but apparently neither one really cared because the political advisors begged Michelle to campaign for some candidates believing it would help and she refused to do only 8 campaign stops. So Obama isn't the only one in his family that could care less about the party. I imagine this will come back on them this year with no one really wanting them to campaign for them.

    Parent
    I am of two (maybe three) minds about this (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    I think that he really does like "speechifying," yes.  But he either truly has "no policy objectives that he wants to meet" and just likes campaigning, or he does have policy objectives but his time spent as a community organizer really did make him believe that you had to "get along" with the opposition and find some kind of common ground and consensus......or, he wants people to think that's what he's really like, when in actuality, he's a DLC neo-liberal, getting what he wants while appearing to be all "bi-partisan."

    Parent
    Answer (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    For the money.  Sacrifice 8 years, get rich(er).  

    Parent
    Okay, Teresa (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    I answered Ga6thDem before I read your answer- you just gave "reason number four."    ;-)

    Parent
    That one I don't buy. There must be (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    easier, quicker avenues to that goal.  

    Parent
    Don't agree. He wil be a billionaire (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by observed on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    after 10 years or so.
    The Presidency is a huge meal ticket for a pol

    Parent
    But it is so stressful and the President (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    and his family are such subjects of scrutiny and bad-mouthing.  Possible assassination.  Difficult way to a fortune, even a guaranteed fortune.  That was my point.  

    Parent
    And his other path to billions is . . . ? (none / 0) (#110)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:19:43 AM EST


    Parent
    You realize that your analysis (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    is a one-size-fits-all approach that would apply to very single person running for President.

    Parent
    Bain. Oil. Wall Street. Name (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    Heritage.

    Parent
    The Heft of the Presidency as Meal Ticket (none / 0) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:39:09 PM EST
    is determined by the President.  Do you think George W. Bush is earning what Bill Clinton has earned?  I doubt it. In part, because Bill Clinton left office after a two-term successful presidency, and Bill Clinton is actually working, and his work has produced a lot of good in the world, thus increasing his provenance. If President Obama leaves office with the legacy of a presidency most believe ineffectual, I doubt he will command the type of speaking fees that Bill Clinton commands, and it's unclear that President Obama will actually build a business, a foundation, or something else.


    Parent
    i fully expect President Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:47:35 PM EST
    at the end of his term(s) to come into his own in the mode of Jimmy Carter & Al Gore - to do much good in the world, with & from a basis of economic security that he probably would not have had without the experience of serving as president

    i think we have not yet seen even a fraction of the best that Barack Obama will have to offer, & i think that by the time he's done presidentin' he will have become thoroughly disillusioned with the notion of the presidency as a platform for progressive humanitarian & philanthropic endeavor

    he will still be a relatively young man, & i think that this experience will have liberated him from a certain type of ambition

    Parent

    If Obama were motivated (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:54:05 PM EST
    by money, he would have taken a different job out of Law School.  As President of the Harvard Law Review, he could have had any job, worked for any law firm.....

    Parent
    And what job was that, MKS? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:15:56 AM EST
    Because the way I think the timeline goes, he went to Harvard after the community organizing gig, not before.

    He ended up at the University of Chicago's law school as a visiting professor, a position that gave him time to work on his book - he got that  contract still in law school.

    I don't believe Obama was motivated by money, although that has been a nice byproduct of his professional life so far; I believe Obama has a bigger need - I mean, if millions of people believe you have what it takes to be president, maybe it overcomes the psychological damage of being abandoned by your father and constructively abandoned by your mother - the two people who are supposed to love you unconditionally and put your needs ahead of theirs.

    So...now that you've waded into the why-did-Obama-even-run conversation, I hope this means you will stop decreeing who is and isn't "right" in their own analysis, and declaring that everyone who voices an opinion you don't approve of has a hidden Hillary agenda that only you have the power to detect.

    Parent

    The job? (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    An Associate position at any Wall Street Firm or the big boys out here.

    Or an investment house in New York.

    Yes, of course, he was a Commnuity Organzier before he went to Law School.  But after Law School he landed at a small civil rights law firm in Chicago.....

    No, not all analysis is the same.....The birthers have theories too....It is an opportunity to bash based on your own personal bias.  You sound like Fox News touting a fair and balanceed need to credit other arguments as being valid when they are just bilge hatred masquerading as objective analysis.

    What you said about Obama could be said largely about Bill Clinton....I have yet to hear you say one positive thing about Obama....

    If you read Dreams of My Father, you get a much more positive view of Obama than your jaudiced view.

    My point was that Obama was not in it for the money....A point you do not refute....  

    Parent

    MKS (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    Is making all the correct arguments.  Couple of thoughts:

    1. When you argue that Obama stole the election or that the DNC gave it to Obama, it ignores (i) the fact that Obama ran one of the best campaigns of all time and (ii) the DNC that "gave" Obama the win was staffed with a majority of Clinton supporters.  If Obama convinced them that he was the better candidate, he was doing his job.  The fact that you are a front runner at the start does not entitle you to front runner status if the other guy is doing better.

    2. If Hillary had won and Obama supporters accused her of having stolen the election or having it handed to her (instead of having earned it through hard work, intelligence and good strategy) I wonder how it would go over.

    My guess: not very well.

    1. If Obama was in it for the money, the amount of money the editor of the Harvard Law Review could make at a NYC firm or elsewhere is staggering.  HIs whole life points to the fact that money is not the primary concern.  MKS is correct.  There is no support for this assertion.

    2.  People don't like to be labeled PUMAs these days (interesting how short a period of time that lasted) but they sure can make all of the PUMAs arguments.  It's funny how few people these days you can get to acknowledge that they were PUMAs.  Anyone here bold enough to admit it? Doubt it.


    Parent
    This is the (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    kind of thing that makes me ROTFLMAO. Obama did not run the "best" campaign. Frankly, Obama is not a very good politician or he wouldn't be finding himself in the pickle he is today. You have to face facts that the DNC chose Obama. Obama did not have the delegates to secure the nomination by himself. The superdelegates are the ones that chose Obama a decision that they are paying dearly for now.

    Parent
    Ga6thDem (none / 0) (#117)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:19:47 PM EST
    This is probably the silliest and least supportable argument that you could make.  Obama's 2008 campaign was ground breaking and one that will be studied by people into such things for years to come. If you argued that he was a great campaigner but poor leader, I'd disagree but you have a supportable argument.

    Asserting that Obama wasn't on fire in 2008 is just silly.

    I have to face no facts.  What you are asserting is wrong and the only thing given was given to Hillary.  She avoided being embarrassed by a prolonged fight which resulted in Obama winning at the end anyway.  The only concession is that she was allowed to lose with her typical class and poise instead of in an bloody battle.

    Sorry if I don't just accept your characterization as "fact".

    Parent

    LMAO (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    Ground breaking? There was nothing ground breaking about Obama's campaign except for the color if his skin. That's the only way you can consider it ground breaking and in that perspective Hillary's was ground breaking too.

    Obama is a poor leader. He has shown us that. I judge him by his actions. You thought Obama was on fire but he really wasn't because once he got to Washington he sure turned lethargic didn't he?

    She did not avoid being "embarrassed" unless you are positing that all the super-delegates were bought off by Obama and maybe they were. I don't know. I just know what they did and did not do. The reason that nothing was done was to keep from embarrassing Obama is what I was told and put forth this idea that the party was "unified".

    If you take away the fact that Hillary was a woman and Obama was an African American what exactly did they do that was ground breaking? NOTHING. It was just the usual campaign stuff that has been done for literally ages but this does all remind me that Obama promised to reform the primary process and he has not but then I knew he was lying when he said that. He will say anything to get you to vote for him but then he'll immediately turn his back on you.


    Parent

    Man (none / 0) (#126)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    The flip from "his campaign was bad" to "poor leader" happened mighty quickly.  Smart move.  The "Obama ran a bad campaign" theory was going to crash hard.

    Obama has been great since he came to Washington.  I have been pleased with what he has done overall.  I am sorry that you do not believe that rational people can hold these beliefs.  That's your bad.

    Anyway, you are obviously angry at the man.  I don't think you are going to be very happy in November.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    missed what I was saying apparently.

    Look I know you see Obama as your personal Lord and Savior. He is your Jesus and I know you will never find fault with him because of that.

    It's not personal with me like it is with you. Obama has just simply done a crappy job. The guy couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag.

    The number of people leaving the party since 2008 has skyrocketed under Obama so apparently I'm not the only one not happy with Obama's performance.

    Parent

    You could have (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    after eight years of George W. Bush, run a dead skunk on the democratic ticket in 2008 doing all your advertising on matchboook covers or on lavatory stall walls written with magic markers and it would have won.

    Parent
    Or a worm... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:40:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Couple of other thoughts (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    the DNC that "gave" Obama the win was staffed with a majority of Clinton supporters.

    BS - You keep making this claim without a single bit of evidence.  Guess it's easier just to make it up ...

    If Hillary had won and Obama supporters accused her of having stolen the election or having it handed to her (instead of having earned it through hard work, intelligence and good strategy) I wonder how it would go over.

    My guess: not very well.

    Depends on whether it was "handed to her", but it's a nice alternative-reality fantasy.

    People don't like to be labeled PUMAs these days (interesting how short a period of time that lasted) but they sure can make all of the PUMAs arguments.  It's funny how few people these days you can get to acknowledge that they were PUMAs.  Anyone here bold enough to admit it? Doubt it.

    Most people here won't admit it - not because they're not bold - but because they're not "PUMA"s, particularly as pejoratively defined by Obots.  But let's turn that on it's head:

    "People don't like to be labeled Obots these days (interesting how short a period of time that lasted) but they sure can make all of the Obot arguments.  It's funny how few people these days you can get to acknowledge that they were Obots.  Anyone here bold enough to admit it? Doubt it."

    Much better.

    Parent

    ABG (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    no one here is claiming that Barack Obama "stole" the election, but many of us agree with Jeralyn that the Democratic Party "gave" the nomination to Obama

    that's because the 2008 nomination was going to be "handed" either to Obama or to Hillary Clinton, given the way the 2008 primaries played out, & ultimately the superdelegates chose Obama

    if they had chosen Hillary instead, i think she would have had an easier time unifying the party, for three reasons:

    1. not only did she have strong support in the African American community (until operatives for Obama began accusing her & her husband of racism, after Obama's loss in New Hampshire), she probably would have chosen Obama as her running mate

    2. there had been no demands from media pundits & Democratic party insiders for Obama to drop out of the primaries

    3. there had been no cabal of white male bloggers & commentators on the left calling Obama a n****r (the way they called Hillary a c*nt & a b*tch & a wh0re)

    it's not just elections that have consequences - campaigns & the behavior of supporters do too

    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:45:05 PM EST
    This is such a female/white centered view of the 2008 primaries. No wonder some see Hillary as a victim.

    1. If she had been given the nomination after Obama was pulling in that kind of support, their would have been a massive uproar.  It was clear after Super Tuesday that he was going to win, and if you think the PUMAs were mad, the anger in the AA (and other communities for that matter) would have been off the charts.  I agree that she would have had to choose Obama as her running mate and he would have had to accept it. She'd have won the general with or without him though.

    But the AA community would have been furious.

    1. There were no demands for him to drop out because he was winning.  There were demands for Hillary to drop out because she was losing.  The myth that Hillary and Obama were somehow tied in the last half of the primary season is just that. A myth.  He was winning. You don't ask the guy winning to bow out for the 2nd place contender.

    2. There was a cabal of Hillary supporters promoting Michelle Obama "Whitey" tapes, sending pictures of Obama dressed in Middle Eastern garb to push the birther theories, asserting that he was being aided because he was black, arguing that  he was an "other" (see the memo from the Hillary strategy team by Mark Penn), etc.

    C'mon now. I got my name on the nets battling Hillary supporters attacks on Obama during the primary. For every "c*nt" thrown at Hillary there was a "he's articulate but . . ." thrown at Obama.  What do you think the 3:00 AM call ad was about?  Promoting the image in American minds of a black guy with a funny name being in charge of an emergency while they slept.

    This is ABG red meat.  We don't need to go here.

    There was plenty of wrong thrown at both Obama and Hillary. The idea that Hillary had it worse is silly.  It was unfair for both of them.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    She had more people pull the lever with her name on it - more than any candidate in the history of primary elections of either party.  But he was winning in the spring?

    Parent
    We pick candidates (none / 0) (#163)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:40:25 AM EST
    By levers and caucuses.  I know it is convenient to pretend that whole states should be disregarded even though they have follows the rules, but no.  

    Obama had more delegates and more committed super delegates. Period.

    Parent

    i am going to address (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    only one of your remarks & leave other commenters to address the rest, if they want to make the effort

    here is the remark i will address:

    There were demands for Hillary to drop out because she was losing.

    she wasn't -- neither candidate was winning, although Obama was running the better campaign -- but i guess you've forgotten that the superdelegates were going to have to decide who ultimately would win the nomination

    the more salient point is that no one, least of all party insiders, should have been pressuring Hillary to drop out during the primaries (or even, imo, before the convention), as if her supporters' votes didn't count, & as if Obama were somehow entitled to the nomination

    he wasn't entitled to the nomination, but his supporters in the party & in the media & on the blogs behaved as if he were

    & now guys like you and MKS have a paranoid obsession with P*MAs, as if there were ever enough P*MAs to matter - sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

    Parent

    Candidates are asked (none / 0) (#164)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:41:24 AM EST
    To drop out for the good of the campaign regularly.  We are about to see a good example of that in the GOP.  It happens almost every campaign.

    Parent
    maybe it's true (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    that

    candidates are asked [sic] to drop out for the good of the campaign [sic] regularly

    maybe so, but Democratic Party insiders & forces in the media were demanding (not asking) that Hillary Clinton end her campaign for the good of Obama's campaign, since clearly the stupid b!tch's refusal to quit was "casting a cloud upon what Obama claimed to be the legitimacy of his nomination" (yes, that is a paraphrase of Justice Scalia)

    even when candidates are "regularly asked" to drop out, it's because they are losing, & Hillary Clinton was not losing - neither she nor Obama was losing, though Obama did limp his way through the spring, to the end of the primary season, when the DNC dragged him over the finish line

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#184)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    The same pundits and insiders that are asking Newt to lay off Romney are the same types that were asking Hillary to drop out when she was losing.

    She's an adult.  There is no issue with asking an adult to drop out for the good of the party. People act like she's some glass candidate. People started mentioning dropping out and she didn't immediately and that's it.  No big deal.  People taking offense about that were ridiculous.

    If Obama was losing and the fighting was threatening the ability of Hillary to win, I would expect party officials to ask him to step down.  That's what party officials do.  They protect the party.

    Hillary was entitled to have complete support throughout no matter what she did. If her continued run hurt the eventual nominee, she should have been asked to suspend.  I'd be more angry if they didn't ask.

    Parent

    Yeah, because who would be (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    offended by WWTSBQ?  

    Once again you have managed to speak out of both sides of your mouth, and do neither one with any success.

    Parent

    In reality, the DEMANDS ... (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    ... for Clinton to drop out of the race were completely unprecedented.

    Parent
    The demands by random (none / 0) (#196)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:30:41 PM EST
    media types.  Please. I was demanding the same thing.  It means nothing. This writer is wrong.  It has happened before and it is going to happen again right now with Mitt and his competitors.  

    [Don't worry, when it does I'll be there to remind you of the fact that you said it never happens]

    There are people calling for Obama to drop out now for goodness sakes:

    Link

    If that angered Hillary's supporters, the fact that Hillary was talking about Obama as her VP when he was leading was frustrating too.

    We got over it.  Lose with class.

    Parent

    "with class" (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    lol

    why, just this morning you called Obama "an evil pimp"

    & no, it doesn't matter that you were putting words in the mouths of the P*MAs (i.e., Imaginary Older White Women) who are your personal demon & obsession

    you used that term

    classy

    Parent

    p.s. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    This is such a female/white centered view of the 2008 primaries.

    although i responded to only one of your remarks in comment 142, i will note in passing this dismissive, gender/race-based taunt, clearly intended to pre-invalidate anything a white woman who supported Hillary Clinton might have to say about the 2008 primaries

    no one here dismisses your "male/black centered view" of anything at all, & that's wise, given that on the Internet we don't really know who is actually female (or male) & who is actually white (or black)

    Parent

    Is any (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    white female who criticizes Obama going to be painted with the pro-Hillary PUMA brush?  Because, very frankly, I'm a white female who neither supported Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama in the Primaries- neither one was liberal enough for me.  I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter.  Yes, call me unrealistic, but that's just the way I am.  A DFH, leftie, pinko, commie, whatever.  I'll probably go to my grave this way.

    Parent
    voters of both genders (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 08:26:18 PM EST
    & assorted racial backgrounds & ages supported Hillary Clinton & did not take kindly to the Democratic Party's message that their votes didn't count in the 2008 primaries

    for ABG, though, it's all about middle-aged & older white women - interesting

    to entertain a complementary broad-brush stereotype, ABG must be a young white fauxgressive guy who supports the ACA because now he can piggyback on Mom & Dad's medical insurance in addition to living in their basement

    Parent

    Actually (1.50 / 2) (#185)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    I think the number of people who felt like their votes didn't count was very small because they understood why it happened and they have forgotten about that silliness.  A small but very loud minority of the minority of Hillary supporters even thinks about that stuff anymore.

    It's like that loud PUMA roar we were going to hear that turned out to be Lady de Rothschild, Amy Siskind, the crazy whitey tape guy at No Quarter and like 78 people total.

    There was no huge outrage and everyone quickly turned their attention to the real bad guys because everyone knew by by the convention that Obama had won. It will barely be a footnote in the history books if Obama wins a second term.

    I know that burns folks like you up, but it's true.

    Obama won. He won legitimately.  He would have won  if the rules laid down at the beginning were followed.  He won under the arrangement agreed to by Clinton.  

    He won.  He didn't cheat. No one gave him anything.

    That's what history and almost everyone will remember.

    Parent

    No Zorba (1.50 / 2) (#165)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:43:26 AM EST
    But if you are a white woman (or anyone else for that matter) and you are arguing that the black guy stole the election or that he didn't earn the win and had it handed to him, then you are talking pumas speak.  

    Parent
    I don't care what you call it (1.50 / 2) (#197)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    Whenever someone here asserts that the unprepared, dim witted shady, slick talking young black guy from Chicago stole the election from the fair damsel in distress, it's every race base taunt anyone has ever made about an intelligent black guy rolled into one.

    Somehow you think you are talking to someone who gets push back and then folds.  

    This Hillary v. Obama, race/gender, "Obama stole the election", PUMAs crap was all I wrote about for literally 8 months.

    If you thought you were going to roll PUMA Election History 101 out and watch me fold, you'd better ask somebody who I am.

    Cause I ain't that guy.

    Parent

    show me EXACTLY where (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    anybody in this thread made this statement:

    Whenever someone here asserts that the unprepared, dim witted shady, slick talking young black guy from Chicago stole the election from the fair damsel in distress, it's every race base taunt anyone has ever made about an intelligent black guy rolled into one.

    one of my comments cites Jeralyn specifically forbidding commenters here to make such a statement

    no denying that racism exists, though, & it's vile - now, how would you like me to tell you that you should just "get over it"?

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 08:49:03 PM EST
    There's at least a half-dozen ridiculous statements in this post, so I'll just pick one:

    C'mon now. I got my name on the nets battling Hillary supporters attacks on Obama during the primary. For every "c*nt" thrown at Hillary there was a "he's articulate but . . ." thrown at Obama.  What do you think the 3:00 AM call ad was about?  Promoting the image in American minds of a black guy with a funny name being in charge of an emergency while they slept.

    This is ABG red meat.  We don't need to go here.

    You're comparing blatant, vulgar misogyny to imaginary claims of racism and equating them?  Hey, you forgot the fact that she was accused of racism for not including an AA child in the 3am ad (even though there was one) and because the pajamas had a subliminal, racist message.

    You're funny.

    BTW - Referring to yourself in the third person?!?

    Geeeeee-zus ...

    Parent

    Yman (3.50 / 2) (#166)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:45:21 AM EST
    Take a step back.

    You are telling the only black guy here that you know better than I do whether there was racism and you don't think that's weird.

    How many black people do you think believe that Obama didn't experience real racism in the primaries.

    I am not going to tell a woman there was no sexism and perhaps you shouldn't tell me there was no racism.

    Parent

    N, thanks - I'm good (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    You are telling the only black guy here that you know better than I do whether there was racism and you don't think that's weird.

    Not remotely "weird".  Moreover, given the history of Obama supporters playing the race-baiting card, you're the last person I would ask about charges of racism.  Your ridiculous claim about the 3 AM ad was the perfect example.  There was nothing remotely racist about it, but it didn't stop you and other Obama supporters from accusing the Clinton campaign of racism.  Remember Orlando Patterson's column where he compared the ad to racist KKK movie "Birth of a Nation"?  Of course, his only evidence (like you) was his magical ability to "read-between-the-lines" to divine the hidden, subliminal racist messages in the ad.  Never mind that the ad was about experience.  Never mind that the ad was simply a bad remake of a Mondale ad.  Never mind that, contrary to author's silly claims ("The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father"), the ad did include an AA child.  Soon enough, other Obama supporters went on to claim that there was a hidden, subliminal message in the child's pajamas.  The claim, of course, was ridiculous, and also ignored the fact that the ad was put together with stock footage.  But no matter ... they, like you, made the ridiculous charges anyway, and that was only one among many false charges of racism used by the Obama campaign and its supporters to help their candidate win the nomination.

    Hey, ... it worked.

    BTW - How could you possibly know that you're "the only black guy here"?  Not that it matters, since it doesn't make your fantasies any more credible, but it's good to know how your logic works.  I guess that means you'll be deferring to any women that post on the subject of sexism from now on.  After all, how could you make the "weird" claim of "knowing more about sexism" than a woman?

    Heh.

    How many black people do you think believe that Obama didn't experience real racism in the primaries.

    I have no idea - and neither do you.  Moreover, I don't care, particularly since it's not a claim I was making.

    I am not going to tell a woman there was no sexism and perhaps you shouldn't tell me there was no racism

    Once again, and slowly so you might one day stop putting (straw) words in the mouths of others - not a claim I was making.  That being said, the false charges of racism from the Obama campaign and its supporters were numerous and ridiculously fact-free, much like most of your claims (the "darkened" Youtube video, Bill Clinton's SC statements, Jesse Jackson Jr.'s Katrina comments, the Somali dress photo, Bob Johnson's cocaine comment, etc. etc. etc.).  There really are to many to list, bust here's a good start - although by no means an exhaustive list.  The fact that you choose to believe them doesn't make them more credible in the least.  In fact, it makes them less credible ...

    ... if that's even possible.


    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#186)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    Hillary folks had no habit of calling everything sexist.

    Pot. Meet this nice similarly colored kettle.

    Parent

    Actually, if you remember, ... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    ... I was discussing YOUR (false) accusation of racism re: the 3AM ad.  But you are right in one respect - Hillary folks didn't have a "habit of calling everything sexist" ... except for, you know, the blatantly sexist comments made by Obama himself, or the obvious stuff by members of his staff.  Things that require zero mind-reading capabilities.

    But I understand why you get so upset and your claws come out ... periodically.  Don't worry, ABG ... it'll be okay, "Sweetie".

    BTW - The irony in your choice of idioms is almost as funny as your ridiculous charges of racism.  just don't be too surprised when people ignore you when you Obama supporters try to play the racism card in the future ...

    Parent

    Please (1.50 / 2) (#198)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    I think I'll be just fine.  This is the same warning we heard when PUMAs told us all that there was no way Obama would win without their support.

    Once I hear the "Obama is a sexist" crap, then I know where I stand with you and what you are about.

    We don't need your help to win thankfully.  I look forward to seeing you disappointed in November.

    Parent

    Who cares if they admit it? (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    I've been coming here long enough to remember when they all came flooding over to this site en masse -- like so many of Hillary's avenging angels.

    There are unhealed wounds and an obvious personal animus toward Obama with these folks that goes deeper than politics.  

    Parent

    More importantly (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    Who cares if they admit it?

    Who cares if you think it?

    Parent

    Bill's personal wing man/ (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    damage control-attack dog speaks..

    What, does he have you on retainer or something?

    Get you in on the ground floor of his outsourcing manufacturing and replacing it with service sector jobs investment scheme?  

    Parent

    It allows us (none / 0) (#121)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    to put the near constant Obama bashing in the correct context.  

    [Sarcasm laser beams . . . engage]

    Many of the comments are by people who never got over the fact that Obama and his cronies in the DNC (which was staffed with Clinton folks somehow) stole the election from the poor and helpless blond damsel in distress despite the fact that his campaign was horrible and raised no money and generated no excitement.  Because clearly, that's the way Obama's 2008 campaign is remembered.

    [aannnnnnnddd . . .  disengage]

    Parent

    It allows you to make up ... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    ... a "context" from thin air, in an attempt to attack legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies.  Plus, since it's based on nothing more than opinion and an over-active imagination - with a touch of mind-reading thrown in, ... it's easy.

    Not credible in the slightest, ...

    ... but easy.

    BTW - You keep making the claim that the DNC was made up of "Clinton people", without the slightest shred of evidence.  Of course, I guess that makes it no different than any of your other claims ...

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    He was a community organizer AFTER he went to law school.  When he worked at that "small, civil rights firm", he billed 3723 hours over years - an average of 930 hours a year (or 17 40-hour weeks).

    Wiki, for starters

    Parent

    over 4 years (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:21:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Probably, but what (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    is your theory about why Obama ran for President?  Given the speculation (and yes, it's just a theory based on a book, and may or may not be the case, although it accords with what I have witnessed in the past three years) that he's not altogether happy about being President, why do you think he ran?

    Parent
    Because it was "there" and the wizards (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    behind the green curtain didn't want Hillary Clinton to become the nominee and/or the President.  

    Parent
    Insert (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    (insert what you think I'd say about these comments here)

    Parent
    Small minded, vindictive. (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:54:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    in that on this topic I would be in complete agreement with anything you said.

    Parent
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    Maybe, maybe not.  I still wonder how much sway the Chicago Machine had in Obama's run for the Presidency.  

    Parent
    Journalist/Documentary Filmmaker John Pilger (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    has some ideas on why Obama ran. 5 min youtube

    Parent
    I love this! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    "Chump politics."  We have all been played.

    Parent
    I think he said (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    "Junk Politics", didn't he? At least, that's how I heard it...

    Parent
    Junk politics, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    chump politics- whatever.  Frankly, they're both right.   :-)

    Parent
    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 06:00:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Complete trash (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:57:39 PM EST
    You are on a par with Orly Taitz.

    You need to show actual facts....not your endless speculation.....

    Go campaing for Nader....

    Parent

    The innuendo about (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    Obama being a secretive operative from the beginning....

    And the big finish:  Obama will never pull out all troops from Iraq because a general said so.  Yep, he really got that one right.....

    Obama kept his promise on Iraq and then some.

    And this is supposed to be persuasive.......

    Parent

    There are still troops in Iraq (none / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    and there are now many more in Kuwait.

    Parent
    No, I do not believe that is correct (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:39:54 PM EST
    Please provide a link.

    The negotiations with the Iraqis on a new SOFA was for 3,000, but those negotiations broke down over the issue of immunity, so Obama said eff it and pulled them all out...

    Parent

    Very, very disappointing, oculus (4.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:12:09 PM EST
    The criticism is that Obama is too far to the Right--at least supposedly on this blog, and you think Hillary is more liberal than Obama?

    What utter nonsense......This post of yours shows if you just scratch the surface, the resentment over Hillary not getting the nomination comes out--and that is what motivates the criticism of Obama.

    An article on Michele Obama comes out, and you guys just can help yourselves.....

    So, for too many it is about Hillary, and taking any avaialable cudgel to bash Obama will do.....

    Parent

    politics ain't beanbag (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 12:07:00 AM EST
    & the comment by oculus is both succinct & objective with respect to Obama gained the nomination in 2008

    oculus says nothing at all about whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama was or is more "liberal" or more to "the right"

    those are your own embellishments & projections

    Parent

    Good lord (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:53:18 PM EST
    Still all aboot Hillary?  And you guys are saying it is those who support Obama who are the ones who can't let it go.....

    Parent
    You're seeing things (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    that aren't there.

    If you're hearing voices, too, call your local mental health center hotline.

    Parent

    Well it is hard to miss when (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    you guys on your own bring up Hillary.....

    I guess you're to blind to see...

    And this mental health center comment......very, very weak.....That is all you can say....Ha!  Busted, very busted.  

    All by yourselves, without any Obama supporters to prompt you, you are talking about Hillary after just two comments into a subject....

    Parent

    I think he likes the idea of (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    inspiring people. Unfortunately he does not have a clear idea of what he wants to inspire them to do, other than things of the 'be all that you can be' variety.

    Parent
    Very very disappointing, Ruffian! (snk.) (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 01:00:37 PM EST


    Parent
    What evidence do you have of that? (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:49:44 PM EST
    Waht nonsense....

    Parent
    And why is he running again? (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:35:44 AM EST
    I do not understand him.  Obama doesn't seem to like DC, he doesn't like politics, doesn't like dealing with anyone in Washington and doesn't seem to particularly like the job.  So why is he running again?!

    Parent
    Perhaps you don't like him (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:29:32 AM EST
    Read his book Dreams of My Father.

    Great read.  Very well written...Very impressive book.  

    Obama is easy to understand unless you assume he is evil as many do.  

    Parent

    Oh jeeze.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    She knows him up close and personal better than anybody else anywhere, and she's still going to vote for him??

    ;-)

    Yes, of course (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    What your snide idiocy fails to note is that you are as helpful to progressives as Rove....

     

    Parent

    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    The first lady  -- chief of staff?  We DID NOT VOTE FOR THE FIRST LADY TO RUN THINGS!!!!

    <snark>

    (and isn't that what they said when Hillary wanted to play a REAL role in her husband's presidency).

    More about Hillary? (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    You guys when left to yourselves still go back to Hillary.

    Of course, of course.....

    Parent

    i notice that you had no response (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:01:28 AM EST
    to this comment the other night:

    the most qualified didn't matter (5.00 / 4) (#9)

    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 09:33:58 PM PDT

    to voters in the 2008 Democratic primaries. . .

    you're not shy about applying the terms "vindictive," "small-minded" & "resentful" to commenters in this thread who have made essentially the same point as Jeralyn

    why so reticent, MKS?

    Parent

    Pretty tame comment (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    And, Jeralyn voted for Obama....

    There is a difference between criticism of policy and an irrational hatred of Obama.    

    Parent

    there certainly is a difference (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    There is a difference between criticism of policy and an irrational hatred of Obama.

    hatred is by definition irrational, & if you want irrational hatred of Obama, you will find it at Fox

    you will also find it at the b@tsh!t crazy P^MA sites (the few that still exist) & a few former P^MA sites, which live & breathe & salivate for the chance to oust Barack Obama from "Hillary's" White House

    at TL, you will find lingering distaste for how the Democratic Party handled its 2008 presidential nominating process, & some of that distaste is directed at Barack Obama, the beneficiary of that process

    i think that all but one or two (mostly infrequent) TL commenters do a good job both of owning their distaste & of keeping it separate from their legitimate criticisms of Obama's policies

    by the way, i don't know who Jeralyn voted for, since i was not in the booth with her, but i do know that she was a supporter of Hillary Clinton until Hillary suspended/ended her campaign in June 2008

    when Jeralyn switched her support to the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, she also cautioned TL commenters as follows:

    You can't spread falsehoods, like [saying that Obama] stole the nomination. He didn't. The Democrats gave it to him.

    that is true, & that is also what oculus said - the same observation that lit your evidently short Hillary fuse

    Parent

    Good, the first reasoned comment on this (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:29:39 PM EST
    topic.

    Jeralyn is a good example of a former Hillary supporter who now has reasoned criticism of Obama.  Moreover, her support of Hillary did not prevent her from ultimately supporting Obama....

    Would that more would follow suit.....

    I give you the Oscar for best defense of the Hillary comments on this thread....Nice try, but, no, the comments were not just like Jerlayn's. It was not just mere commentary--it was right square in the of the Hillary-was-robbed-I-loathe-Obama genre.

    Parent

    You can keep saying it, MKS, but (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:56:07 PM EST
    that's not going to make it so, and the more you keep kicking this dead horse, the more it seems like you are the one with the problem.


    Parent
    Anne, you know, you guys (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:58:38 PM EST
    self identify by jumping in here.

    If I were so wrong, you could just ignore my comments....But...something about protesting too much.

    Parent

    MKS has a point (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:42:52 PM EST
    Let's just ignore his posts so he'll have to keep responding to himself to get traction.

    Parent
    You too (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    Ha! Another one....

    Parent
    As long as we can all agree (none / 0) (#131)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    that neither side has the lock on the correct answer, we can let the dead horse lie.

    If Anne's point is "please stop arguing against the assumption that Anne believes is correct and just accept her facts as the truth" then the horse should get ready for more kicking.

    Parent

    no, MKS (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    i am not mounting a "defense of the Hillary comments on this thread" (most of which are actually yours) - they are what they are & need no defense from me

    what i have tried to do is explicate, for you, comment #16, since you misapprehend its meaning

    but it's good to see that you acknowledge the truth of what Jeralyn pointed out: that the Democratic Party chose to give the nomination to Barack Obama, the less qualified candidate, since neither he nor Hillary Clinton commanded the support of a decisive majority of superdelegates (& as BTD pointed out in the thread i cited earlier, the party's Rules & Bylaws Committee had to break its own rules in order to do that)

    what really shocked me, though, is that Donna Brazile didn't just up & quit the Democratic Party on the spot, as she said she would do if the nominee ended up being chosen by the superdelegates

    Parent

    Is Ms. Brazile still a political commentator (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    on the air?  

    Parent
    Still in the weeds of 2008? (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:48:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Is that the answer to my question? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:46:14 AM EST


    Parent
    I acknowledged no such truth (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:57:27 PM EST
    I did not and do not agree with Jeralyn's assessment. I tought Obama was more qualified.  Her comment was tame because it came unaccompanied by the usual tendentious venom.

    The Rules.  You are invoking the the rules in defense of Hillary?  Good Lord.  The Hillary people including Ickes voted to not seat the Michigan and Florida delegates--when Hillary was up 20 points in the polls.

    Obama's response was the same as George McGovern's in 1972 to  HHH's cry that the winner-take-all Primary in California was unfair.  (Can't change the rules during the middle of the game.) And 1972 was the most open and democratic in the delegate selection process--before Superdelegates.

    And, still whining about it now.....You prove my point.   The delegates in 2008 and the rules???

    The Hillary supporters/P*mas here never left that place of disappointment in her losss.....and that is why Obama is evil and can do no right....

    Parent

    correction (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:04:55 PM EST
    Jeralyn said, & i quoted her as saying, that Barack Obama was less qualified for the presidency than Hillary Clinton

    actually, i don't think that Obama was less qualified, or that Hillary was more qualified

    they were equally qualified, since both were U.S. citizens over the age of 35

    what i would say, & what i think Jeralyn should have said, is that Hillary was more experienced

    not only had she already served more than a full term in the U.S. Senate, she had also been First Lady for 8 years

    apart from the connections she had forged in the Senate, her time in the White House uniquely qualified her for the presidency, in terms of both politics & policy

    but Obama, with every weapon of rhetoric at his disposal, chose an arrogantly sexist put-down to characterize Hillary Clinton's 8 distinguished years as a dynamic, involved, politically sophisticated First Lady - you might want to remember that before you complain again about her "whining" supporters

    Parent

    Still litigating this? (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    WTF?

    The more this conversation goes on, the more proof there is that too many Hillary supporters are still stuck in 2008.

    As to the "put-down," it went both ways.....But we are so past that now....one would hope.

    Parent

    From a guy constantly complaining ... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:29:55 PM EST

    ... about someone supporting Nader in 2000, ...

    ... that's pretty funny.

    Parent

    No, it is about supporting him today (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    Sorry I was not more clear....The Quixotic notion that Obama should be defeated in favor a third party candidate today.....

    Someone who supported Nader in 2000 is water under the bridge and hopefully part of the lessons learned category......

    Parent

    Edger is supporting ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    ... a Nader candidacy today?!?  I must have missed that ... do you have a link?

    Parent
    Okay, MKS, I've read through this (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    sorry-ass comments section, and I have a couple of things to say:

    (1)    I may have been one of a very few who actually commented on the article itself - the focus of which was Michelle Obama - and did not use it to "jump" in and beat Barack about the head and shoulders over the 2008 election.  In fact, I had nice things to say about Michelle -  funny how that got missed, huh?

    (2)    Hint: when someone refers to a "matter-of-fact comment" it is probably referring to the tone of the comment, not the content.

    (3)    Another helpful hint: read all the way through someone's comment, and read it again, if necessary; when you leap before looking, most of the time you end up with your feet in your mouth, instead of where you thought you were aiming.

    (4)    It should be obvious even to a blind man that the only ones who ever seem to love going back to 2008 - here, anyway - are those who need to deflect justified criticism of Obama's policies and governance by labeling as P*MAs as many critical commenters as possible for the express purpose of delegitimizing anything they might have to say.  That's just cheap, unbelievably juvenile and transparent as hell.

    (5)    My congratulations to you and ABG: your love apparently bloomed right here at TL over your shared fondness for Obama and mutual dislike of anyone who - crazily enough - wants actual Democratic policy from a Democratic president.  

    Get a freakin' room.


    Parent

    What a bunch of condscending trash (1.50 / 2) (#152)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    I note that when you were ostensibly trying to be nice to ABG, you commented that you were off-put that in spite of your diligent efforts to tutor ABG, he refused to accept this schooling from his betters....and insisted on holding to his beliefs....

    My how offesnvie it was for you that ABG would not accept your tutoring....

    Anne this thread is rife with all kinds of Hillary comments regarding 2008--and not by me.....

    Get off of that way high horse of yours....

    Parent

    It's "rife" with comments ... (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    ... about Hillary because of comments by ABG and you.

    Of course, back when it was only three times and you were still complaining about it ("Hillary independently came up three times on this thread"), not mentioning the fact that two of the references were sympathetic to MO.

    Parent

    Big whoop (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    How could any comment about Michelle Obama not be favorable?......Talk about dog bites man.....Only a few nasty Republicans have issues with Michelle.....

    And, being okay with Michelle means there is no bias against her husband based on the 2008 Primary?

    Parent

    What?!? (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:39:03 AM EST
    And, being okay with Michelle means there is no bias against her husband based on the 2008 Primary?

    No - it means your "evidence" to support your theory is imaginary.

    By my count, Hillary independently came up three times on this thread...all of them in an off-topic context.....Just scratch the surface and out it comes...

    HC was only mentioned three times before you jumped in with your Hillary/PUMA fantasy, and two of those were in the context of sympathizing with MO's roles as First Lady.  It was after you and ABG started with the PUMA nonsense that the thread became "rife with Hillary comments".


    Parent

    We can't get a room (none / 0) (#167)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:46:42 AM EST
    You and edger are already occupying it.

    Parent
    "litigating"? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    there's nothing to be litigated - Barack Obama won the nomination & the election

    that is reality, & i am a reality-based organism - i also support President Obama's re-election, as a choice between giving the Democratic Party or the Republican Party control of the executive branch

    & regardless of what "one [i.e., you] would hope," in the wake of the 2008 nomination process there have been defections from & dissension within the Democratic Party, like it or not

    Parent

    How many years (none / 0) (#141)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    in office before Obama was more experienced than Hillary.   A few days? Months?

    My sense is that if Hillary challenged Obama in a primary, many of her fans would still argue that she was more experienced at the job of President.  Because that whole experience question has become that convoluted and stretched.

    She was the husband of a president and a senator for just a little while longer than Obama. That experience argument never made any sense to me.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    using just strictly the Senate she would be way more experienced that Obama. If you want to take Obama's term as a part time legislator in IL then you also need to use Hillary's time as FLOTUS then. So Obama didn't even get any type of elected office until 1996 and Hillary had already been FLOTUS for four years then and she also had been in the Senate for four years by the time Obama ran for the IL Senate. There's really no question that she was more experienced than he and it's been painfully obvious that the lack of experience has come back to bite him.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    And it is me who is talking about Hillary and 2008??

    Parent
    several people are now discussing (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 05:54:06 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton & the 2008 primaries, as a direct result of your censorious, passive-aggressive response (comments 39 & 40) to a straightforward opinion expressed in comment 16 by oculus

    if you can't take the heat, step away from the flamethower, but please stop whining when people respond to your provocations

    Parent

    And let the choir say (none / 0) (#130)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    AMEN.

    Parent
    I know it's unintentional, ... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    ... but it's funny how often the diehard Obama supporters use religious words and symbols when they discuss him.

    Parent
    Unintentional (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    but expected the way that his detractors believe Obama is biblical code for Lucifer.

    Parent
    "Lucifer"? - keep chucking that straw (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    Can you make a single point without wandering off into the land of exaggeration and hyperbole?

    Parent
    Uhhhm (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    You connected my use of "Amen" to the mythical religious worship that Obama supporters have of him.
    I think you lost your "I can accuse others of hyperbole today" card before I even responded.

    Shorter:

    Your joke: OK
    My joke: exaggeration and hyperbole

    Same basic joke, flipped around.

    Parent

    The difference being ... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    ... the religious fervor of Obama supporters when it comes to "The One" is real, as was your choice of religious terminology when trying to defend him.  OTOH - no one here has called Obama "Lucifer".

    BTW - Still waiting for something (anything) showing that the DNC positions were held by a majority of Clinton supporters, as you keep claiming.  Or, you could keep tossing out  more baseless claims ...

    Parent

    The demonization of Obama is real (none / 0) (#168)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:48:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Not here it isn't (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:27:56 AM EST
    But that's never stopped you from "reading between-the-lines", mind-reading, creating works of fiction, etc., etc., etc.

    Parent
    Yman (1.00 / 2) (#172)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    Hilarious.

    "the religious fervor of Obama supporters when it comes to "The One" is real"

    But no reading between the lines there.  No stretching typical fervor for a good candidate into crazy delusion there.  No ridiculous accusations there?

    Because when you do it you are stating fact.  When it is done to you it is ""reading between-the-lines", mind-reading, creating works of fiction, etc., etc., etc."

    I don't have to discredit you.  The unbalanced way in which you address the issue does it for me.

    I don't know why people tend to think that they can just call Obama's supporters mindless drones and the supporters just take it.  This "I know you are but what am I" stuff is childish, but if that's what makes you happy, bring it.  I'll keep shooting it down as the BS it is and the circle of life will continue, as I like to say.

    Parent

    You have to do it at least once (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    I'll keep shooting it down as the BS it is and the circle of life will continue

    ... before you can "keep doing it".

    BTW - You think it's not real?  Did you read the "Lightbringer" article?  Do you really need some more examples?  'Cause they're pretty d@mn easy to find, and there's no "reading between the lines" needed at all ..

    Evan Thomas calling Obama - "In a way Obama's standing sort of above the country, above the world, a sort of God ..."

    Singing spiritual songs with Obama's name substituted for Jesus' name ...

    Celebrity Obama supporter Spike Lee saying "I'm not gonna say that it's God", but that Obama's candidacy is "pre-ordained" and "not a mistake".

    Jesse Jackson Jr. - the Obama campaign national co-chair - calls for new bible chapter for Obama.

    Even Jon Stewart did a bit on it.

    He//, Obama himself was getting embarrassed by some of it, trying to turn it into a self-deprecating joke:

    "Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger," he said to knowing laughter. "I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth."

    BTW - It was actually a pretty good joke, but my point is the reason it was funny.

    Is this all Obama supporters?  No, of course not.  But there's enough of it that it became a running joke that even Obama felt the need to joke about it, and when you yourself start to use religious words when defending Obama, I just find it pretty funny.

    BTW - Your turn - since you keep comparing the two, let's see some examples of Obama being called "Lucifer" (no winger sites, either - they'll say anything).  I'll be waiting for them, as well as something (anything) to back up your oft-repeated fairy tale about the DNC being made up of Clinton supporters.  But I won't be holding my breath, ...

    ... since it only exists in your mind.

    Parent

    YMan (1.50 / 2) (#176)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    Are there people out there who had a crazy fascination with Obama?

    Yes.

    Were there people who worship at the alter of Hillary (cough Pumas) and were every bit as devoted to the idea of her winning as Obama's biggest supporters?

    Yes.

    Do you get to pretend that Obama worshippers were the norm while Hillary worshippers were not the norm?

    No.

    Parent

    Yet MORE false equivalency (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    Were there people who worship at the alter of Hillary (cough Pumas) and were every bit as devoted to the idea of her winning as Obama's biggest supporters?

    Really?  Show me the link to people substituting Hillary's name for Jesus.  Show me the link to news reporters calling her a "sort of God".  Show me the link to a celebrity supporter calling her nomination "preordained".  Show me where her national campaign chair called fo ra new chapter in the Bible to document her accomplishments.  Show me one of her supporters calling her a "Lightworker ... that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve".  Oh, wait, ... that's right ... you can't ...

    ... because there was no quasi-religious worship of Clinton among her supporters the way there was with many Obama supporters.

    Do you get to pretend that Obama worshippers were the norm while Hillary worshippers were not the norm?

    No need to "pretend" anything, since the Obama-worship is well-documented, whereas the "Hillary worship" ...

    ... only exists in your mind.

    BTW - Not a single link, ABG?  Something (anything) supporting your (baseless) claims:

    1.  the DNC was a majority of Clinton supporters,
    2.  Obama is being "demonized" as "Lucifer" (apart from some rightwing loons), and
    3.  there were HC supporters using religious terms and deification as Obama supporters did.

    Still waiting ...

    (Cue sound of crickets chirping).

    Parent

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    all that to make some playground-intellectual turf defending point about Clinton supporters being more rational tha Obama supporters (so there!)?

    A couple of people here could take a cue from Flaubert when he talked about taking the time to write a short missive..

    Parent

    The truth hurts, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    Feel free to move right along if it's too taxing, ...

    ... although I understand why someone offering no evidence would want to "keep it short" ...

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#188)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    It's just a silly argument.  No one is going to be proven right.  You are never going to get me or any Obama fan to say "I was brainwashed" and I don't expect you or any Hillary fan to admit that almost all of this is driven sore loser-ism. The fact that you say something is true means nothing to me and I am sure the feeling is multual, so why even go down this path?

    Let it go and move on. Obama has. Hillary has. The rest of the country has. And if they haven't when Obama beats the GOP twice.

    Then again, maybe you should bask in your 2008 anger for another year. By January 20, 2013, it'll really be irrelevant.

    Parent

    Much better to lay all this off to (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    "sore-loserism" than to accept that the criticism has its basis in policy, in governance and the adoption of nearly all the worst of the Bush policies; in case you hadn't noticed, people here talk policy - as in, what they think is best for the country.

    And I can assure you that had Hillary been elected and governed like Obama, she would be on the same hot seat, with her feet to the same fire we've been turning up on Obama.  Because it's about the policy, not the personality.

    Parent

    Why is that? (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    Because Obama will be re-elected?

    Pffffttttt .. so what?  You think that's supposed to mean something?  Just like in 2008, you should be able to pick a random guy off the street and beat the Republican field.  Even under these circumstances, he's making it a close contest.  So far he's managed to fall from a historic high approval rating of almost 70% to a current 42%.  Four more years of his "leadership" and he's gonna make Carter like the best POTUS evah!

    BTW - I have no anger toward Obama from 2008.  What I resent is the ridiculous accusations of "Racist!" from some Obama supporters.  Then you go ahead and do it again today.  Sorry, ABG - as long as some Obot wants to play the race card (and use the same, baseless, PUMA attack), I'm not "moving on".

    BBTW - As far as being "proven right", I've provided links and quotes to back up my claims.  You've provided nothing.  Then again, ...

    ... I guess there's a reason for that.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    a full response to your directive would require an exposition of psychoanalytic thought regarding what is known as "the return of the repressed"

    so here's the short version: people who feel certain that a process was fair have no compulsion to keep telling other people to "let it go" & "move on" & "get over it"

    Parent

    Obama wasn't chosen by the Superdelegates (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    He was chosen by a majroity of all the delegates.....

    You guys are still litigating the 2008 Primary--that was very close to four years ago.

    Parent

    right square in the middle of (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:30:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I know it's Saturday night, (none / 0) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    and the punchbowl is awfully tempting, but what purpose do you think you're serving here now that you've woken up?

    A civil conversation was taking place, so when you came to, you felt what was needed was a little trolling?

    Well, you've shown us all what a spoiled brat sounds like, so please, tone it down, or go back to sleep.

    There's plenty of time between Monday and Friday to spoil a good thread, but, being Saturday, I'm asking you, please, give it a rest.


    Parent

    You guys are busted! (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    A nice civil discussion with all kinds of conspiracies and illfounded innuendo.

    And, without anyone to counter the anti-Obama hatred, out comes the Hillary talk.....

    Yes, letting you guys on was very, very illuminating.......

    I'm not sure if I could ever have dreamed of proving what I have known for some time:  too many here have such an abiding, all-consuming hatred of Obama based on Hillary......but you guys just filled the void.

    Parent

    Letting you guys "go on"..... (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:37:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Why doesn't she just quit already? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 01:01:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Are you taling about Hillary again? (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    This comment comes more veiled than the others....

    Parent
    "talking" about HIllary (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:48:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Do you have short term memory loss? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 03:19:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh! Another insult without analysis (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:57:03 PM EST
    The lack of substantive response suggests no response is available....

    Parent
    Sort of like ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:10:31 PM EST
    Another insult without analysis.  The lack of substantive response suggests no response is available....

    ... calling someone a "fool" after going after their completely unrelated support of Nader?

    You might be onto something.

    Parent

    Punchbowl? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:35:14 PM EST
    Project much?

    No, I was not drinking from the punchbowl...

    Parent

    Greenwald misses again (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by koshembos on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:24:14 PM EST
    The best chief of staff wouldn't make any difference. Obama doesn't have a clue.

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    I think he has more than a clue. I think he knows exactly what he's doing, and where he's going with it.

    I've said many times that I think Obama is not incompetent, nor is he stupid. He has a history of setting very high goals for himself and of achieving the goals he sets out to achieve.

    He made it to President, after all. Incompetent and/or stupid people do not become President.

    Even George W. Bush, often held out as an example of incompetency, was not at all incompetent. On the contrary, he was extremely effective for eight years at getting exactly what he wanted, whenever he wanted.

    Bush accomplished everything he set out to accomplish, in spite of and even because of a Democratic Party that for the last two years of his presidency controlled a majority in both the House and the Senate for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

    If Barack Obama keeps on getting the kinds of results he keeps on getting, it's because those are the results he was aiming for.

    Everything he's 'accomplishing' he's accomplishing on purpose, because it's what he sets out to accomplish.

    Like any applicant for the job of CEO in any large corporation, I think Obama was handed a mission statement during the interview process, and asked if he had any disagreements with it, and if he felt he could execute it.

    If he had answered those two questions wrong that would have been the end of the process.

    He deserves all the credit he deserves. He's much better than any republican.

    No republican would have had a hope in hell of putting all the stuff over on people that Obama has managed to do, and at the same time seduce them into believing they're supporting radical change.

    Parent

    for a post script (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 06:01:39 PM EST
    see my entry #122 on down post "Friday Night Open Thread"

    Parent
    to engineer a permanent reduction (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 06:11:23 PM EST
    in the standard of living of around 30% for the remaining 99%?

    You're not alone in thinking that.

    University of Missouri, Kansas City Professor of Economics Michael Hudson...

    Mr. Obama has appointed neoliberal advisers. The deal that he made when he was elected was that he would get Wall Street's campaign financing in exchange for appointing Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and other Wall Street people. And the financial sector all over the world is opening a class war against labor from the United States to here. Mr. Obama's intention is to reduce wages here by between 20 and 30 percent, and that requires a recession--or, actually, it requires much more than a recession; let's just say depression.

    So about three months ago, Mr. Obama negotiated with the Republicans to adopt the Republican program of cutting back government spending in order to shrink demand, lower employment. His objective is to create more unemployment, in the belief that if you cut back employment, wages are going to go down, and if wages go down, that will create higher profits. That's sort of a bizarre belief, and he's willing to bring on a recession in order to serve the neoliberal philosophy.
    [snip]
    So the result is that austerity is going to lead to more debt defaults, more foreclosures, and we're into a kind of escalating depression that is essentially wiping out the middle-class wealth but letting wealth flow to the top. This is really benefiting the top 1 percent of the economic pyramid.

    video interview



    Parent
    This is why (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 06:51:23 PM EST
    Obama's boosters, clappers, and eternal optimists are being so foolish. And, also why yesterday's employment numbers were simply more of, "look over there, a shiny new penny!"

    Even if the trend continues, and unemployment drops to 41/2% (considered "full" employment) "They" will have won, and the 99% will have lost. As "Anne" has told us repeatedly, employment numbers by themselves, without the qualifiers of wage levels & benefit levels, are meaningless.  

    As the great Oracle, George W. Bush, has shown, you can fool most of the people most of the time: "I reduced Taxes."
    Of course he left out, benefiting only the top 1%.

    So, as the great majority of Americans are led to a permanent status of Serfdom, we are left with the choice of: "Who do you want to lead that Exodus to Poverty, Obama, or an Evil Republican?"

    I guess that's a choice.


    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    My income has been dropping for about ten years, and the same for most people I know....

    Parent
    Chime. I'm making what I made (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    more than five years ago, with no raises since -- and taking home what I did ten years ago, owing to increases in health insurance . . . since Obama took office.  And now, as I ought to be nearing retirement, my pension plan is imploding, and I cannot count on Social Security.

    And I have a "good" job, for someone with advanced degrees and lots of experience, so that when I landed it 20 years ago, all was going to be gravy.

    (Oh, and my home -- my "other pension plan" -- is losing value by the day, too.)

    I can hardly wait for election day.

    Parent

    I said on (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    another thread your choice is going to be between indentured slavery or just plain slavery. Not sure which is worse. The jobs that we are getting here in GA are low paying with no benefits.

    I'm convinced the only way to raise the standard of living in this country is through single payer.

    Parent

    That would certainly be a plus, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    But, I'm afraid, "the only way to raise the standard of living in this country," is the way oppressed people throughout history have done it.

    And, that's what the 1% are afraid of, and why OWS petrifies them so.


    Parent

    Single Payer would absolutely do it... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    Canada has had a single-payer system for more than thirty years. (Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Taiwan also have one.) American executives who have run Canadian subsidiaries see it as a business boon. Take General Motors. In 2003 its costs of building a midsize car in Canada were $1,400 less than building the identical car in the United States (the comparable figures for DaimlerChrysler and Ford were $1,300 and $1,200). Such savings are no mystery. Canadian companies pay far less in taxes for health coverage for everyone than the premiums they would pay under the US system to provide their employees with comparable benefits.

    Highly placed Canadian business executives affirm that single-payer nurtures free enterprise. A. Charles Baillie, while chairman and CEO of Toronto Dominion Bank, one of Canada's six largest, hailed it in 1999 as "an economic asset, not a burden." He told the Vancouver Board of Trade, "In an era of globalization, we need every competitive and comparative advantage we have. And the fundamentals of our health care system are one of those advantages." He added: "The fact is, the free market...cannot work in the context of universal health care. While health care could be purchased like any other form of insurance...the risk and resource equation will always be such that, in some cases, demand will not be matched by supply. In other words, some people will always be left out." (A recent report by the World Bank ranked welfare states like Denmark, Finland and Sweden high in international competitiveness. An author of the study said, "Social protection is good for business, it takes the burden off of businesses for health care costs.")

    In 2002, top executives of the Big Three automakers' Canadian units joined Basil (Buzz) Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union, in signing a "Joint Letter on Publicly Funded Health Care." At a press conference with Hargrove, Michael Grimaldi, president and general manager of GM Canada and a GM vice president, called single-payer "a strategic advantage for Canada." The joint letter, also signed by Ford's and DaimlerChrysler's presidents and CEOs, Alain Batty and Ed Brust, said that while providing "essential and affordable healthcare services for all," single-payer "significantly reduces total labour costs...compared to the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by US-based automakers" and "has been an important ingredient" in the success of Canada's "most important export industry."

    [snip]

    Corporate America is blowing a supreme opportunity to do well by doing good. Enlightened self-interest this is not.


    Read it all here...
    Single-Payer: Good for Business
    Morton Mintz, The Nation, October 28, 2004

    Parent
    low paying with no benefits (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    of course, the Democratic pushing of neo-liberal economics and Free Trade in the nineties had nothing to do with any of that. Nothing whatsoever..

    The kinds of compromises Obama's making now are wholy without precedent. Right out of the blue..

    Parent

    So you think you are Tom Hayden? (1.00 / 4) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    Going to post a bunch of pro-Nader stuff?  You are a fool.

    Parent
    I think what the excerpt tells us is that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:52:31 PM EST
    Michelle Obama is a smart, strong woman with smart, strong opinions, who was understandably wary of the DC inner circle, who wants to live her life as much on her terms as possible, and keep her children's lives as normal and as structured as possible in accordance with her family's values.

    I have no idea what's wrong with that; women could do worse things than take a page out of Michelle Obama's book.

    What irks me is how much hostility there still is toward smart, strong women, how threatened the power structure still is, and how the ranks almost reflexively close to keep strong, smart women on the outside.

    And contrary to the fight MKS is working way too hard to have, this is NOT ABOUT THE 2008 ELECTION AND HILLARY CLINTON.  

    It is, rather, about whether this is or isn't an enlightened society that values intelligence, strength and ambition in women, or whether it is, at its heart, still living in the cave, where women are supposed to be quiet, compliant and never, ever make waves, especially if it might show up some man.

    And to MKS, I don't know what crawled up your ass an died, but you are sounding more bitter by the minute, and it's not a good look for you.

    For what it's worth... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 06:13:00 PM EST
    What irks me is how much hostility there still is toward smart, strong women, how threatened the power structure still is, and how the ranks almost reflexively close to keep strong, smart women on the outside.

    When it comes to the Hillary equivalent in this thread, this is what it's about, to my mind. It's amazing (and painful) to me that after all this time, Michelle Obama is criticized for the same things that Hillary Clinton was criticized for when she was FLOTUS, and that M. Obama receives widespread praise only when she steps back and fulfills the "traditional" FLOTUS role. These are two amazingly strong, accomplished, intelligent women, and yet the idea of M. Obama as B. Obama's Chief of Staff is as violently decried as if it were the second-coming of H. Clinton's "two for one" comment. People aren't even reacting to something that's actually happening, but just to the idea that someone, somewhere might think it could/should happen.

    For all the progress that we've made regarding women's positions and possibilities, it's cases like this that pull us up short, and make us realize how much further we have to go. So it's not surprising -- or, it shouldn't be -- that these cases provoke such a strong reaction and are so fiercely argued. The stark comparison between the criticism of the two women is a mark of how far we haven't come in the past 12 years. H. Clinton's treatment is valuable as a standard for comparison -- a recognition that there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to trying to slap down talented, ambitious women.

    The H. Clinton vs. B. Obama sideshow disguises the commonalities, and derails the solidarity that could be achieved by directly comparing the H. Clinton and M. Obama situations. It's only about the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton in that there's a comparison to be made between the way M. Obama is being treated and the way H. Clinton was treated when she was FLOTUS -- and speculation whether or not we'll have progressed enough by 2016 that M. Obama will find better treatment than H. Clinton received when she "graduated" to senator and candidate in her own right.

    The reaction to the idea of M. Obama taking an official role in B. Obama's presidency is tied inextricably to the contemptuous dismissal by some during the 2008 campaign of the idea that H. Clinton's time as FLOTUS was actual experience. It's a perfect double-bind that erases the real knowledge and skills many women (especially women of the baby-boom generation) have developed as they've made their way through the world -- we can't make it official, because who the heck hired/elected/whatevered her, and because we didn't make it official, we don't recognize it as being important, or even as existing at all. Providing she's actually following national and world events and acting as an advisor/soundingboard/etc. (which I take as a given), M. Obama will know more about the way the U.S. government works -- or doesn't -- than the vast majority of people in the country (including those in government) by the time B. Obama leaves office in 2016. I really hope that by that time, we'll have progressed far enough that people won't scoff at the idea that she knows what the heck she's talking about.

    Parent

    exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    H. Clinton's treatment is valuable as a standard for comparison -- a recognition that there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to trying to slap down talented, ambitious women.

    i would add that unfiltered expressions of racism are now verboten on both the left and the right

    but unfiltered, vile expressions of misogyny* are still A-OK, even on the so-called progressive left, not to mention in the media, as the 2008 primary campaign clearly demonstrated

    this -- as embodied in the Democratic Party's 2008 nomination process & the media circus that surrounded it (not in Barack Obama's actual election to & service in the presidency) -- is what Hillary Clinton's former supporters, women as well as men, continue to protest whenever certain people want to minimize or deny the real damage it caused to the party

    & this is what certain commenters in this thread, secure & arrogant in the exercise of their male privilege, are demanding that we "get over"

    * i prefer the term "misogyny" (fear & hatred of women) to the more polite "sexist" because the latter term falsely implies that men & women are equally the victims of gender-based violence  & other forms of discrimination

    Parent

    Why was Hillary raised on this thread? (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:09:13 PM EST
    Yes, it was about Hillary, and it is still about Hillary.....

    We have a comment that the reason Obama won the Primary fight was because right wingers wanted Obama rather than Hillary.....

    Explain that before talking about orifices....

    Parent

    If you are referring to oculus' comment, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:25:30 PM EST
    she made no mention of "right-wingers," so I wonder if perhaps you leaped before you looked on that one.

    I can't speak for oculus, but I suspect she was referring to the opinion that it was the powers-that-be within the Democratic party who manipulated and broke its own rules in order to ensure that Obama would get the nomination.

    But she can let you know if that's what she meant.

    I have no desire to re-fight the 2008 election, and I didn't take oculus' matter-of-fact comment as one that should have provoked the level of vituperation you leveled at her, and at everyone else in range.

    Seriously, you sound bitter and angry out of proportion to any of the comments you responded to that way.

    Parent

    Matter of fact? (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:34:41 PM EST
    It was a matter of fact that Democratic party operatives pushed Obama into running (that was the context given the thread) because they so wanted to defeat Hillary?

    The primary criticism on this blog has (now) become that Obama is too far to the right--the criticism is supposedly coming from a leftist perspective.....And, yes, that is perplexing coming from Hillary supporters....

    And, Anne, you are not immune from putting Hillary in the conversation gratuitously.  Witness your out-of-the blue comment awhile ago about "periodically feeling down."

    Scratch the surface, or when you let your guard downm, it becomes about Hillary very quickly.

    Not bitter....just animated at haivng my theory validated.

    Parent

    "Validated"? - heh (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    Not bitter....just animated at haivng my theory validated.

    ... only in your own mind ...

    Parent

    And fair readers of the Hillary references.. (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:15:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, of course (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    ..."fair readers of the Hillary references".

    Parent
    See, when you guys devolve into (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    junior high school insults, it shows you have nothing intelligent left to say.

    By my count, Hillary independently came up three times on this thread...all of them in an off-topic context.....Just scratch the surface and out it comes...

    Parent

    Hillary was mentioned in a thread ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    ... three times?!?!

    wow.

    BTW - It's not the fact she's mentioned in a thread that I'm laughing at ... it's the mind-reading powers and "between-the-lines" interpretations some people like to engage in.

    BBTW - The mind-reading helmet was pretty gentle mockery of the misinterpretations of any Hillary comment, but it's good to know you now disapprove of "junior high insults".

    Parent

    I stand by the assertion that any suppport (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    of Nader is for fools.

    It is a substantive comment...

    And the tinfoil hat should be reserved for those who see a conspiracy by right wingers to support Obama in the Primaries to keep the nomination from Hillary.

    Parent

    And I stand by the assertion ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    ... that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as well as the fact that your interpretations of the motives and "innuendo" of other commenters when it comes to all matters Hillary is as believable as that mind reading helmet.  That is a substantive comment, as opposed to your specifically saying to Edger, "You are a fool", particularly on a comment thread that had nothing to do with Nader.

    You should get that helmet checked ... might help with the Hillary fantasies and the obsession with someone else's choice to support Nader.

    Parent

    i agree (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    And the tinfoil hat should be reserved for those who see a conspiracy by right wingers to support Obama in the Primaries to keep the nomination from Hillary.

    now please show me where, exactly, anybody on this thread has made that claim

    Parent

    I still think Nader would (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    have both Obama, Gore, and Clinton for breakfast, lunch and dinner in a straight up debate. He'd probably leave them evoking Reagan (in an attempt to tug at America's heart strings) and the blessings (for the poor in the U.S) of being able to buy cheap sh*t made in China and Mexico.

    Whether Nader should be running for office is another story..

    Btw, People tend to forget that more registered Democrats in Fla voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

    Parent

    You have a problem (none / 0) (#62)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:51:14 AM EST
    with quoting Obama.

    Think that through to its logical conclusion.

    Parent

    Let me quote him instead (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    Barack Obama made another promise on Saturday, finally showing how "in touch" with the reality of ordinary Americans on the ground he is...

    "This year, I'm going to keep doing whatever it takes to move this economy forward and to make sure that middle class families regain the security they've lost over the past decade," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

    "That's my New Year's resolution to all of you," he added.

    [snip]

    "We've got to keep at it. We've got to keep creating jobs," he said in the address.

    "And we've got to keep rebuilding our economy so that everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share - and everyone plays by the same rules. We can't go back to the days when the financial system was stacking the deck against ordinary Americans. To me, that's not an option."

    It would be terrible to go back to those bad old days, wouldn't it?

    Don't Bogart That Joint, My Friend

    Parent

    Here's the (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    link, btw...

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    The quote is fine.

    Parent
    Huh? I have no idea (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:14:49 PM EST
    what you are talkinga about....No Obama quotes were the subject of the discussion....at least the discussion that led the reference to Hillary.

    Parent
    not true (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    oculus referenced "the wizards behind the green curtain" - i take oculus to mean Democratic Party insiders, & specifically an anti-Clinton contingent within it

    personally, i would also add Wall Street interests - Obama, all by himself, took more money from Wall Street than did any other candidate, & that was going on as early as 2006, two years before he gained the nomination - see "Barack Obama Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine"

    it's also true that it is not possible to discuss the 2008 nominating process without also discussing Hillary Clinton, no matter what you think or how you feel about the outcome

    Parent

    This was a thread (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    about Michelle Obama and it gets hijacked by the anti-Obamabots into a discussion of how awful Obama is, and the further hijacked into a Hillary discussion.

    The more who come out here trying to explain it away, the clearer it becomes that the glue that binds together the anti-Obamabots is the Hillary connection.

    Parent

    a timeline of the "Hillary hijacking" (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    comment 1 (Ga6thDem): My takeaway is that neither Obama is wild about living in DC or the presidency.

    comment 2 (Zorba): Why did he actually run for the Presidency, then?

    comments 3-14: various commenters respond to the question posed in comment 2, or they make other observations; the name "Hillary" comes up exactly twice, once in comment 7 (where TeresaInSnow2 sympathetically likens criticisms of First Lady Michelle Obama to criticisms of First Lady Hillary Clinton) &  again in comment 11 (where itscookin speculates, sympathetically, that First Lady Michelle Obama will not choose to follow in First Lady Hillary Clinton's footsteps by seeking political office after leaving the White House)

    comment 16: oculus, responding to the question originally posed in comment 2, asserts that Obama ran for the presidency because the office was open and because "the wizards behind the green curtain didn't want Hillary Clinton to become the nominee and/or the President"

    at comment 40, MKS weighs in, & it is here that we see the beginning of MKS's attempt to "hijack this thread into a Hillary discussion"

    i believe that the assertion by oculus (comment 16) is supported by the facts, though i recognize that some will disagree - but no one can deny that the machinations of those whom oculus calls "the wizards" have had consequences - on this point, the briefest of primers is offered in a balanced post by BTD, titled "Unity?" & dated May 31, 2008, & containing this money quote:

    Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party [and] he just made his already difficult task of unifying the Democratic Party that much more difficult.

    & how do MKS & his ilk respond when confronted with the results of Obama's actions?

    they say, "Get over it"

    sound familiar?

    Parent

    heh, 3 yrs later . . . (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    and O still can't unify his party. The republicans might be able to unite the dems though . . . . :)

    Parent
    How long did it take you to assemble (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    the comment????

    Parent
    not long (none / 0) (#86)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    Firefox has a pretty efficient search function

    Parent
    That's good. You don't need to work so (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    hard on my behalf!

    Parent
    i did this (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    on behalf of what i see as the truth (though i'm not sorry if you feel supported by the effort)

    Parent
    Perhaps it's because as FL (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:17:28 PM EST
    she took a lot of sh*t for being exactly what MO is. Or were you not born yet?

    Parent
    Nope, that won't work (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:25:09 PM EST
    The comment thread was how Obama really didn't want to be President, has no values of his own, etc....

    And, then the comment that Obama was pushed into running by right wingers who controlled the Democratic Party and wanted someone to defeat Hillary.....That had nothing to do about being First Lady.

    And, yes, there was the bitter comment about Hillary in connection with being First Lady.....It was not a supportive comment about Michelle Obama or even a critical comment about her.....It was a gratuitous comment, a very revealing one.....

    And, then you fall into the standard Hillary supporter put down of Obama supporters--that we are young.....

    My oh my, you guys are showing your colors tonight....

    Parent

    BTW, the 'not born yet' was not really (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    about your age or all O supporters being young. It was more about the crap Hillary as FL went through and how on earth could you not remember and not see a similarity. Perhaps because you aren't a woman? I'm pretty sure MO is very aware of it . . .

    Parent
    Honestly . . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 12:07:40 AM EST
    I read the crit of MO in the article as similar to what they said about Hillary. I mean really, MO has a fine line to walk as FL, especially with her background and obvious intelligence/experience. Which goes back to HRC in being too smart and involved as FL.

    As much as you would like to froth over this, I like MO.I think she's in a difficult position and is doing the best she can.  

    Parent

    right wingers wanted Obama rather than Hillary.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:31:20 PM EST
    Cleansed:

    "right wingers wanted Obama rather than his opponent..."

    Better?

    Parent

    How Orwellian (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:53:21 PM EST


    Parent
    The thrust of the article seemed (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    unclear.  Micelle Obama did not like certain things, but she did not want to do anything that would interfere, or involve her too much.   And, then, this reader, at least, was unsure if the "tensions" between Rahm and the First Lady were policy-based, or another Nancy Reagan/Don Regan difference of opinion on presentation or her husband.   Or, was the whole thing Valerie Jarrett and her desire to be top dog?    Oh, my, what to think?   Where is Sally Quinn to help us sort all this out?  Too bad, Louella Parsons in no longer with us.

    Nor much to think at all (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    From what I gather the author hasn't spoken to the Obama's in over two years.

    Parent
    I don't expect that Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#11)
    by itscookin on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    will want to follow in Hillary Clinton's footsteps and run for public office in the future based on her unwillingness to participate in the political process except in very limited, very traditional First Lady kinds of ways. Since she appears to have little influence on her husband's administration when push comes to shove, what she thinks about the world doesn't really matter to me. Let her raise her children, walk her dog, weed her garden, and vacation however she wants. If it keeps her busy and entertained, good for her.

    After hrg. her speak w/o notes at (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    a 2008 large gathering in NY, I am convinced she is the better politician.  Then the campaign put a muzzle on her.  

    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    Why am I not surprised?

    Parent
    MKS you might be right (none / 0) (#90)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    that some commenters here have a bias towards Hillary. Its natural, like how ABG says Obama has strong support in the AA community. Liberal/progressive women were proud of Hillary and were not proud of the other women in the political spotlight like Palin. You might not realize it but women have had struggles all over the globe and here in the USA too. So it was a thrill to see a woman rise to the top because of her strength, intelligence and hard work.

    Most of those Hillary admirers do not hate Obama. I really don't think anyone here hates him. Admiration for one person does not automatically mean hating another.

    Michelle is in a similar position that Hillary was in the 90s. Do you know how vicious people are about her? Its amazing. She is almost always on the Style pages of Huffington Post, and I like to follow her and the comments about her. She, like Hillary was, is a role model for many women. If you go to a Tea Party site the comments are insane. Either way people are curious about her. It will be interesting to follow her and the girls too.

    I have cast the movie (none / 0) (#194)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    Chiwetel Ejiofor and Viola Davis

    NY Times Excerpts From "The Obamas" | 200 comments (200 topical)