You can tell it’s Friday when the insecure, big talk-little do pols rush to the media to say something disgusting, nasty or self-aggrandizing. So sure enough attention seeker extraordinaire, Sen. Pat Leahy, deems to command Hillary to withdraw. [Like he’d ever tell BO to, scheesh!]
Why Friday? Because he assures himself of invites on all the hate-Hillary weekend TV and radio programs. He lives to bask in the limelight. He’ll be cosseted and cajoled as he and the interviewer engage in mutual masturbation over the Hope Pope, while verbally tearing HRC to shreds.
The media will have its usual field day. All the BO lies will be unmentioned or glossed over; all the HRC accusations will be pulled out, refurbished and bronzed with plenty of lightly scented misogyny. Blogs like dailykos will go nutz with joy and tax even their ability to shovel manure.
And most everyone will forget Pat, the quitter-master giving in and supporting Roberts and Aleto to the Supremes; Or his turning his back on women’s reproductive issues after assuring voters he would not let his religion influence his duties as Senator.
Item – Condi Rice may be VP choice for McCain -
“Republicans would never stand for the media to treat Rice or any other woman on the Republican ticket with the vile disrespect showered on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democrats have benefited from and all but begged corporate media to insult Hillary, and thus all women, with daily barrels of misogyny. With Condi Rice on the ticket, I'm guessing sexism becomes a firing offense at MSNBC…
“The view of the left seems to be, we honor our minorities but see no problem with belittling, demonizing and slandering our MAJORITY, which is FEMALE. Unless, of course, they belong to the Village standard for women-who-belittle-and-demonize-other-women in order to be admitted to the BoyZ Club, the fringe membership, that is, allotted to "women who know that their place is to (publicly at least) agree with and worship the Boyz.
Geez, is it really that obscure to the Democrats Who Matter, that women are increasingly angry about the wanton sexism and misogyny that have been revealed on the airwaves and in the campaigns this cycle? I mean, we've grown to expect this kind of thing from Republicans, but from the Democratic Party? It's become increasingly clear that the party of the little man really means it -- THE MAN, not the woman.”
http://nomoreapples.blogspot.com/2008/03/sexism-and-democratic-party.html
“Barack Obama frequently cites his impressive record as an Illinois state legislator as an indicator of his experience in running for President. Turns out, according to former Chicago reporter Todd Spivak, all of his legislative accomplishments were in his final 7th year and were handed to him by his mentor, Ill. State Senate President Emil Jones.”
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/23/224059/069
Yup, the Quiter-master won’t tell you about the sexist comments made by BO himself about Hillary. And of course the media is silent about how often BO has used the “sexist words”, males learn from the cradle, when he speaks to his audiences. Words like “claws coming out, throwing the kitchen sink, periodically feeling down, tea parties.
But we’ll hear about Bosnia and truth and Hillary while all these lies of BO are carefully kept out of the media. 61 lies have been chronicled. Here’s a sample and the rest may be clicked at this url. http://www.obamalies.org/?page_id=15
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
Now who do you think is more honest? Here are a couple of U-Tube postings that the media won’t show you:
“This came out of this young woman's heart. It is not campaign inspired--that I know of. No one paid for it. She did it on her own, by herself, with only her own talent and good sense to guide her.”
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/30/13319/6467
And this one just to make you laugh and be happy:
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=719C948584EACEEB
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@comcast.net
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:
http :// www.gendergappers.org
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
LADY OR TIGER?
Oh my, oh my! The mean stream media is going catatonic – Hillary “misspoke on Bosnia”. The sky is falling! The sky is falling. It endlessly replays the scene in Bosnia while ignoring the fact that she immediately responded that she misspoke.
But not all reporters are lemmings. Craig Crawford thinks for himself, he wrote: “Although seemingly embarrassing for her, this episode did serve to provoke repeated airings of video showing Clinton on her trip to Bosnia 12 years ago looking more like a Commander in Chief than like a First Lady.” http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/
Where was the media’s truth squad when BO lied about hearing his pastor say the inflammatory statements in his church? Remember those racists’ rants from BO’s mentor, Wright, for 20 years? Remember the sermons that they were forced to report on because Bloggers and Utubers made the stink big enough so they had to notice?
Must be they were just too overcome with their rapture and adoration for BO to notice that his alibis and excuses oration was as divisive as it was misleading. It was a stunning example of, “the [white] Devil made me do it” passing the blame ploy. How they raved on, calling it “worthy of Lincoln” and other superfluous accolades, but they neglected to check out - http://americanrhetoric.com
Or perhaps they didn’t want us to know that among the 100 greatest speeches notably by MLK, Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders was the historic speech given by President Lyndon B Johnson pleading to Congress and the Nation to pass the historic civil rights bill. LBJ quoted MLK " We Shall Overcome " and it is titled under this name. There also, among the 100 greatest speeches was First Lady, Hillary Clinton's historic challenge in China to recognize women's rights as human rights.
And when it comes to outright lies, the media mavens turn a deaf ear to the many times BO and his campaign have twisted words and facts as they accuse every person who supports HRC of playing the race card.
How Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton “A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false but deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
It has been BO’s modus operendi to pretend he is above the fray while his supporters plant the rumors and do the dirty work. He wants to appear to be pure, precious and unsullied, and has done that, despite his many lies and disinformation, with the loving help of many in the media.
To paraphrase Bush, BO could say to the media, “Some call you the free press but I call you my base.”
In Frank Stockton’s short story there were two doors; behind one is the Lady and behind the other is the Tiger. The doors are metaphorical in this Dem Primary saga. Here the voters have a choice and they are beginning to turn away from the Lady.
It may come down to which door the Super Delegates will open. Will they choose the one hiding a tough fighter for human rights or the one hiding the race baiter who disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan? Lady or Tiger?
The Lady is “typical” - a stereotype - pouting and petulant and pedantic. The precious one that our media covers up, protects and worships. He is crafty, untruthful, self-aggrandizing and phony; blocking votes in two states because he knows he cannot win them shows he will do anything to win.
The Tiger is strong, dependable, experienced and a fighter with guts and ability that has inspired so many of us. Hillary Rodham Clinton will truly be a Tiger for us in the Oval Office.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@comcast.net
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:
http :// www.gendergappers.org
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
But not all reporters are lemmings. Craig Crawford thinks for himself, he wrote: “Although seemingly embarrassing for her, this episode did serve to provoke repeated airings of video showing Clinton on her trip to Bosnia 12 years ago looking more like a Commander in Chief than like a First Lady.” http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/
Where was the media’s truth squad when BO lied about hearing his pastor say the inflammatory statements in his church? Remember those racists’ rants from BO’s mentor, Wright, for 20 years? Remember the sermons that they were forced to report on because Bloggers and Utubers made the stink big enough so they had to notice?
Must be they were just too overcome with their rapture and adoration for BO to notice that his alibis and excuses oration was as divisive as it was misleading. It was a stunning example of, “the [white] Devil made me do it” passing the blame ploy. How they raved on, calling it “worthy of Lincoln” and other superfluous accolades, but they neglected to check out - http://americanrhetoric.com
Or perhaps they didn’t want us to know that among the 100 greatest speeches notably by MLK, Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders was the historic speech given by President Lyndon B Johnson pleading to Congress and the Nation to pass the historic civil rights bill. LBJ quoted MLK " We Shall Overcome " and it is titled under this name. There also, among the 100 greatest speeches was First Lady, Hillary Clinton's historic challenge in China to recognize women's rights as human rights.
And when it comes to outright lies, the media mavens turn a deaf ear to the many times BO and his campaign have twisted words and facts as they accuse every person who supports HRC of playing the race card.
How Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton “A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false but deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
It has been BO’s modus operendi to pretend he is above the fray while his supporters plant the rumors and do the dirty work. He wants to appear to be pure, precious and unsullied, and has done that, despite his many lies and disinformation, with the loving help of many in the media.
To paraphrase Bush, BO could say to the media, “Some call you the free press but I call you my base.”
In Frank Stockton’s short story there were two doors; behind one is the Lady and behind the other is the Tiger. The doors are metaphorical in this Dem Primary saga. Here the voters have a choice and they are beginning to turn away from the Lady.
It may come down to which door the Super Delegates will open. Will they choose the one hiding a tough fighter for human rights or the one hiding the race baiter who disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan? Lady or Tiger?
The Lady is “typical” - a stereotype - pouting and petulant and pedantic. The precious one that our media covers up, protects and worships. He is crafty, untruthful, self-aggrandizing and phony; blocking votes in two states because he knows he cannot win them shows he will do anything to win.
The Tiger is strong, dependable, experienced and a fighter with guts and ability that has inspired so many of us. Hillary Rodham Clinton will truly be a Tiger for us in the Oval Office.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@comcast.net
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:
http :// www.gendergappers.org
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
obama's Shallow Credentials on National Security are Dangerous for the Country
Obama's Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country
Expert Guest Post by Joseph C. Wilson
The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.
To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls.During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president's role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.
On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush's Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.
In 1995 and 1996, while serving as Political Adviser to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, I was directly involved in the diplomacy associated with the movement of troops from Western Europe to Bosnia in support of the efforts of President Clinton and his special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to implement the Dayton Accords and bring an end to the Balkan genocide.
In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton's National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama's senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate's slender credentials.
In each of the three cases, there was a critical common denominator: direct presidential engagement. During the Desert Shield part of the first Gulf War, then President Bush personally chaired many of the National Security Council meetings and made nonstop calls to foreign leaders to assemble the international coalition and secure the U.N. resolutions that provided the legal underpinning for the military action.
In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.
And in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the aerial bombings of Addis Ababa and Asmara ceased thanks to the personal efforts of a President.
Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.
Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton's historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon's feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.
Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush's war into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.
Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.
As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?
Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama's public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.
Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of "fear." One of Obama's fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn't about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.
There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain -- the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient -- several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?
The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.
Expert Guest Post by Joseph C. Wilson
The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.
To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls.During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president's role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.
On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush's Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.
In 1995 and 1996, while serving as Political Adviser to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, I was directly involved in the diplomacy associated with the movement of troops from Western Europe to Bosnia in support of the efforts of President Clinton and his special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to implement the Dayton Accords and bring an end to the Balkan genocide.
In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton's National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama's senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate's slender credentials.
In each of the three cases, there was a critical common denominator: direct presidential engagement. During the Desert Shield part of the first Gulf War, then President Bush personally chaired many of the National Security Council meetings and made nonstop calls to foreign leaders to assemble the international coalition and secure the U.N. resolutions that provided the legal underpinning for the military action.
In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.
And in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the aerial bombings of Addis Ababa and Asmara ceased thanks to the personal efforts of a President.
Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.
Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton's historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon's feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.
Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush's war into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.
Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.
As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?
Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama's public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.
Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of "fear." One of Obama's fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn't about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.
There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain -- the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient -- several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?
The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
YOU'VE LOST WOMEN, DNC - DEAL WITH IT!
It’s time to take a moth-eaten myth out and give it a shakeup. The old chestnut that women will bite the bullet and vote for BO because of abortion, and because the Dem Party bosses support him is DOA.
Nothing has show women how ineffective, weak and unconcerned our Dem elected lawmakers are in supporting women’s right to choose. For that matter, even after attaining a majority, they mostly sat back and let the minority Republicans have their way in everything. One of Speaker Nancy’s first moves was to take impeachment off the table - Free ride for Bush/Cheney.
Early on when Roberts and Alito were proposed for the Supremes, most Dem Senators went along and voted for them with hardly a murmur. Even Pat Leahy of Vermont, who claimed he was a champ for women’s rights, when he was running for reelection, bent over and spread them.
Women mostly get bupkiss from the Dems, yet women have been the most loyal voting bloc, the hardest workers and are still largely unrepresented. Events in this presidential primary have more than proven how the DNC has been the moving force to defeat HRC’s bid to become the Dem nominee by promoting BO’s campaign of misogyny and sexism.
Women have noted how many of the Dem leaders have done nothing to correct media reporting they know to be false. They have also noted how many of them actually pile on to criticize the Clinton campaign, echoing the media.
Enough! There is a limit to being constantly nice and dependable patsies. As more and more women and their supporters become aware of what is being chucked down their throats they are determined that since fairness does not prevail, they will vote McCain 19% or stay home 13%.
And this doesn’t even count the number of disenfranchised voters who went out and voted for HRC in Florida and Michigan. BO has declared these votes to be null and void, with the dithering, idiotic backing of the DNC. They know BO has prevented any re-voting too.
While declaring that the Super Delegates must vote for the winners in their states, the DNC and BO campaign find it A- OK when NM Gov. Richardson, Senator Ted Kennedy and others ignore the vote of their states to support BO.
Plenty of women just are not going to vote for someone who has divided this country into little pieces: by gender, by age, by race, by religion and by claiming that all whites are typical and racists. Bye, bye DNC Party bosses – keep your penis rulz and false promises for the GE and McCain. You have no credibility left. You’ve let women down to often.
Nothing has show women how ineffective, weak and unconcerned our Dem elected lawmakers are in supporting women’s right to choose. For that matter, even after attaining a majority, they mostly sat back and let the minority Republicans have their way in everything. One of Speaker Nancy’s first moves was to take impeachment off the table - Free ride for Bush/Cheney.
Early on when Roberts and Alito were proposed for the Supremes, most Dem Senators went along and voted for them with hardly a murmur. Even Pat Leahy of Vermont, who claimed he was a champ for women’s rights, when he was running for reelection, bent over and spread them.
Women mostly get bupkiss from the Dems, yet women have been the most loyal voting bloc, the hardest workers and are still largely unrepresented. Events in this presidential primary have more than proven how the DNC has been the moving force to defeat HRC’s bid to become the Dem nominee by promoting BO’s campaign of misogyny and sexism.
Women have noted how many of the Dem leaders have done nothing to correct media reporting they know to be false. They have also noted how many of them actually pile on to criticize the Clinton campaign, echoing the media.
Enough! There is a limit to being constantly nice and dependable patsies. As more and more women and their supporters become aware of what is being chucked down their throats they are determined that since fairness does not prevail, they will vote McCain 19% or stay home 13%.
And this doesn’t even count the number of disenfranchised voters who went out and voted for HRC in Florida and Michigan. BO has declared these votes to be null and void, with the dithering, idiotic backing of the DNC. They know BO has prevented any re-voting too.
While declaring that the Super Delegates must vote for the winners in their states, the DNC and BO campaign find it A- OK when NM Gov. Richardson, Senator Ted Kennedy and others ignore the vote of their states to support BO.
Plenty of women just are not going to vote for someone who has divided this country into little pieces: by gender, by age, by race, by religion and by claiming that all whites are typical and racists. Bye, bye DNC Party bosses – keep your penis rulz and false promises for the GE and McCain. You have no credibility left. You’ve let women down to often.
Friday, March 21, 2008
MEDIA ON DRAMAMINE
They must be or all their own spinning would drive them crazier than they already are. Right now BO supporters are rushing out to explain to us that if we just understood the Black church culture we’d have no problem with what the Minister Wright said. Thus speaketh self appointed wise man, David Gergan.
BO himself, with his surrogates, is spreading the race-card-spin around the gullible media like warm butter. Their message is clear. If you don’t vote for BO then you are racist. Oh, we know this has been out there for months, but now there is a huge intensity given this message.
It was out there and worked just great where there were caucuses because there were many people who did not want to be seen as racist because they feared the violent consequences.
Let’s just stop this in its tracks. People, many people vote for Hillary because they just don’t like BO. Then there are those who support her because she is a smart, experienced woman and that drives the boyz crazy mad.
There’s no racial bias in most Hillary voters and for those who are biased it seems that freedom of opinion is still allowed in this democracy. Wrong! According to BO and surrogates. Racism is dividing the country and you must elect BO to keep the country together. His campaign does nothing to condemn or stop the threatened violence that is rampant among his supporters. He revs up animosity toward whites without noting that Blacks also have interracial fears.
Bob Herbert wrote (12/12/93): Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Hillary is not the divider here; it is BO who intends to win at any cost – the very intent he faults HRC for. His surrogates constantly blame women, who are a loyal 55% of the Democratic Party voters, for not abandoning Hillary.
But think about the big picture. Who can beat McCain in November? The following URL gives everyone a chance to figure it out for themselves and read what others have calculated. It’s much better than letting one’s self be led around by a disinformational media.
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/fun-with-electoral-college.html
Many more women and men are writing and talking and blogging and joining together to come forth to say, “No, not again. We demand a fair nomination fight; we demand fairness in reporting by the media. If racism is a crime then sexism is. Don’t expect us to give in and vote for BO.
On Friday, it got to be too much for Alegre, a diarist on the flagship liberal blog DailyKos, who frequently writes in support of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. “I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our online community has tried to accomplish in this world,” Alegre wrote Friday evening. “No more.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/blogtalk-pro-clinton-bloggers-walk-out-of-kos/
Keith Olbermann pandered mightily in an interview given to BO, regarding his Minister Wright friendship, just hours after castigating Hillary in one of his scathing comments that always before has been limited to traitors and lawbreakers.
But he should have addressed the Ferraro story with BO in that interview. He should have made clear that on rethinking it that both he and the rest of the media went of half-cocked and gender biased.
It would have been truthful and fair but that’s not in the spin – that would never please the corporate bosses. So he and the others just pop a few more Dramamine pills and ride their spin knowing that the Democrats must have a united party to win and counting on women to give up and give in as usual.
BO showed himself to be a hypocrite when he stood by his minister but separated himself from certain sexist, racists’ rants: "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News [4/11/07], "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude." http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1
Michelle Obama has made inflammatory statements that appear to be akin to those of Rev. Wright – it seems both MO and BO have had close association for many, many years with him and could not escape his sexists and racists ideology.
It was noticeable that BO revised his claim that he had never heard incendiary speech from his minister Wright somewhat in his long TV sermon/lecture to the country on 3/18/08, but only Repug stations and pundits mentioned it.
BO was aware of the terrible things Wright said and feared getting caught in an outright lie. He was cautioned by his own supporters to come clean.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/rev-wright-and-barack_b_91693.html
Now the media will dissect his long TV sermon/lecture and aside from FOX [and one brave soul on NSNBC, Joe Scarborough] will rave, pat him on the back and cheer him on as they are paid so well to do. #
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.com
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:
http :// www.gendergappers.org
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
BO himself, with his surrogates, is spreading the race-card-spin around the gullible media like warm butter. Their message is clear. If you don’t vote for BO then you are racist. Oh, we know this has been out there for months, but now there is a huge intensity given this message.
It was out there and worked just great where there were caucuses because there were many people who did not want to be seen as racist because they feared the violent consequences.
Let’s just stop this in its tracks. People, many people vote for Hillary because they just don’t like BO. Then there are those who support her because she is a smart, experienced woman and that drives the boyz crazy mad.
There’s no racial bias in most Hillary voters and for those who are biased it seems that freedom of opinion is still allowed in this democracy. Wrong! According to BO and surrogates. Racism is dividing the country and you must elect BO to keep the country together. His campaign does nothing to condemn or stop the threatened violence that is rampant among his supporters. He revs up animosity toward whites without noting that Blacks also have interracial fears.
Bob Herbert wrote (12/12/93): Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Hillary is not the divider here; it is BO who intends to win at any cost – the very intent he faults HRC for. His surrogates constantly blame women, who are a loyal 55% of the Democratic Party voters, for not abandoning Hillary.
But think about the big picture. Who can beat McCain in November? The following URL gives everyone a chance to figure it out for themselves and read what others have calculated. It’s much better than letting one’s self be led around by a disinformational media.
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/fun-with-electoral-college.html
Many more women and men are writing and talking and blogging and joining together to come forth to say, “No, not again. We demand a fair nomination fight; we demand fairness in reporting by the media. If racism is a crime then sexism is. Don’t expect us to give in and vote for BO.
On Friday, it got to be too much for Alegre, a diarist on the flagship liberal blog DailyKos, who frequently writes in support of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. “I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our online community has tried to accomplish in this world,” Alegre wrote Friday evening. “No more.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/blogtalk-pro-clinton-bloggers-walk-out-of-kos/
Keith Olbermann pandered mightily in an interview given to BO, regarding his Minister Wright friendship, just hours after castigating Hillary in one of his scathing comments that always before has been limited to traitors and lawbreakers.
But he should have addressed the Ferraro story with BO in that interview. He should have made clear that on rethinking it that both he and the rest of the media went of half-cocked and gender biased.
It would have been truthful and fair but that’s not in the spin – that would never please the corporate bosses. So he and the others just pop a few more Dramamine pills and ride their spin knowing that the Democrats must have a united party to win and counting on women to give up and give in as usual.
BO showed himself to be a hypocrite when he stood by his minister but separated himself from certain sexist, racists’ rants: "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News [4/11/07], "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude." http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1
Michelle Obama has made inflammatory statements that appear to be akin to those of Rev. Wright – it seems both MO and BO have had close association for many, many years with him and could not escape his sexists and racists ideology.
It was noticeable that BO revised his claim that he had never heard incendiary speech from his minister Wright somewhat in his long TV sermon/lecture to the country on 3/18/08, but only Repug stations and pundits mentioned it.
BO was aware of the terrible things Wright said and feared getting caught in an outright lie. He was cautioned by his own supporters to come clean.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/rev-wright-and-barack_b_91693.html
Now the media will dissect his long TV sermon/lecture and aside from FOX [and one brave soul on NSNBC, Joe Scarborough] will rave, pat him on the back and cheer him on as they are paid so well to do. #
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.com
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:
http :// www.gendergappers.org
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
Thursday, March 13, 2008
A CULT OR OCCULT PRESIDENCY
It’s all coming down to the how you see it through the cracked and broken prism of the media. The BO cult is right out in the open but ignored by the media, disrupting caucuses, constantly blogging comments derogating age, Latino/a, women and lesser-educated working people. This attitude is led and encouraged by BO wife, Michelle.
From the latest New Yorker--a profile on Michelle Obama. [We aren't in Laura-land any more]. “I want to rip his [Bill Clinton] eyes out!” she said, clawing at the air with her fingernails. One of her advisers gave her a nervous look. “Kidding!” M. Obama said. “See, this is what gets me into trouble.”
But still hidden, by the candidate and most all of the media is the information about BO’s past that should be exposed to public view and discussed just as HRC’s has been.
http://houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/2
Hidden also is the mean stream media’s refusal to blame BO for dividing the Democratic Party; for endangering the election; for refusing compromises; for energizing racism and for his and his campaign’s many unreported sexist slurs and complaints.
Twin to this is the media’s rampant protection of BO and its active participation intent in insuring his nomination. This is seen not only in TV programs that masquerade as news, but also nearly all of the hosts on Air America Radio who not only provide positive comment to him but also denigrate HRC.
Most are extremely biased and unfair, but two stand out for their vehemence and continuous use of misinformation concerning HRC to make BO appear a victim. They are AAR’s Randy Rhodes and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann whose vendetta against HRC grows nastier with each broadcast, culminating on March 13th with a ranting tirade against her that earns him our PATRONIZING PUTZ award.
On his March 10th broadcast he spent nearly all of the first 20 minutes demonizing her, even to the point of linking her, in character, to the unfolding Eliot Spitzer scandal. He uses the same nasty, accusatory toned voice that he uses when he is castigating someone in his Edward R Morrow moments or doing his Worst Persons in the World skits.
He makes much of BO getting Republican votes as an indication of his broad appeal but he claims that the large Republican vote going to HRC were only cast by those wanting BO defeated.
Among a host of other charges of dishonesty, he claimed her foreign policy experience in Kosovo and Northern Ireland were lies, despite the fact that all of what she has said has been fact checked. All the information may be found at: http://hillarysbloggers.com http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/11/20/56/hillary-in-ireland/
[Hillary gave what Northern Irish leader and Nobel Laureate John Hume described as "decisive support" to the peace process in Northern Ireland, including her focus on the participation of women.]
At the end of the program Keith showed a clip from SNL with the introduction that “HRC’s campaign would not be happy with this one and were probably on the phone complaining”. It showed her being wakened up by a call from BO in the White House. He was tearful and distraught from a call he had gotten and was asking her what he should do.
Olbernann concentrated on HRC’s appearance as if that was the whole skit. Her SNL double was covered with layers of makeup and it was not flattering by any means but it surely was not as damning as the sight of BO’s double in tears, at wit’s end begging her to tell him what to do.
Could it be that Keith was trying to deflect the damning portrait of BO and make his listeners and viewer concentrate on how awful the HRC character looked? This is just one more example of the occult – the media cover-up to the rescue, a recurring theme.
Randy Rhodes is shameless in her many attacks. She only takes calls from people who agree with her and call her the goddess, with an occasional call from a nutter that she talks over to drown out and then claims she is allowing the opposition to speak. Opposition posts to her blog are met with threats and are not posted.
One of her latest is to spend three hours a day deny all the information about BO’s people going to the Canadian Government and claiming that it was really HRC’s people who did this and then blamed BO. The fact that this has been denied many times by the Canadians does not deter her. Once she gets her teeth in a lie she will not let go.
Canadian PM Harper's office:Clinton Campaign never contacted us ever by bradydundee,
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:43:05 PM ESTCanadian PM's Office: Hillary Camp Made No Backchannel Assurances on NAFTA Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.
The upshot of all this intensive media bias may be fueling increasing efforts on the part of Hillary supporters to work harder and has certainly brought new people in eager to help and who are exposing and blogging about the BO mobs at the polling places.
If the media and/or vote manipulation for BO prevails, there is already a move afloat among many women to write in HRC on their general election ballot. Their fear of the occult power that is fronting Obama is greater than their fear of another Republican in the White House.
"Hang on Sloopy. For all the invisible women, it's the only anthem they've got. And for their sake alone, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should not give up the fight. Tina Brown - Newsweek
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.com http://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
From the latest New Yorker--a profile on Michelle Obama. [We aren't in Laura-land any more]. “I want to rip his [Bill Clinton] eyes out!” she said, clawing at the air with her fingernails. One of her advisers gave her a nervous look. “Kidding!” M. Obama said. “See, this is what gets me into trouble.”
But still hidden, by the candidate and most all of the media is the information about BO’s past that should be exposed to public view and discussed just as HRC’s has been.
http://houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/2
Hidden also is the mean stream media’s refusal to blame BO for dividing the Democratic Party; for endangering the election; for refusing compromises; for energizing racism and for his and his campaign’s many unreported sexist slurs and complaints.
Twin to this is the media’s rampant protection of BO and its active participation intent in insuring his nomination. This is seen not only in TV programs that masquerade as news, but also nearly all of the hosts on Air America Radio who not only provide positive comment to him but also denigrate HRC.
Most are extremely biased and unfair, but two stand out for their vehemence and continuous use of misinformation concerning HRC to make BO appear a victim. They are AAR’s Randy Rhodes and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann whose vendetta against HRC grows nastier with each broadcast, culminating on March 13th with a ranting tirade against her that earns him our PATRONIZING PUTZ award.
On his March 10th broadcast he spent nearly all of the first 20 minutes demonizing her, even to the point of linking her, in character, to the unfolding Eliot Spitzer scandal. He uses the same nasty, accusatory toned voice that he uses when he is castigating someone in his Edward R Morrow moments or doing his Worst Persons in the World skits.
He makes much of BO getting Republican votes as an indication of his broad appeal but he claims that the large Republican vote going to HRC were only cast by those wanting BO defeated.
Among a host of other charges of dishonesty, he claimed her foreign policy experience in Kosovo and Northern Ireland were lies, despite the fact that all of what she has said has been fact checked. All the information may be found at: http://hillarysbloggers.com http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/11/20/56/hillary-in-ireland/
[Hillary gave what Northern Irish leader and Nobel Laureate John Hume described as "decisive support" to the peace process in Northern Ireland, including her focus on the participation of women.]
At the end of the program Keith showed a clip from SNL with the introduction that “HRC’s campaign would not be happy with this one and were probably on the phone complaining”. It showed her being wakened up by a call from BO in the White House. He was tearful and distraught from a call he had gotten and was asking her what he should do.
Olbernann concentrated on HRC’s appearance as if that was the whole skit. Her SNL double was covered with layers of makeup and it was not flattering by any means but it surely was not as damning as the sight of BO’s double in tears, at wit’s end begging her to tell him what to do.
Could it be that Keith was trying to deflect the damning portrait of BO and make his listeners and viewer concentrate on how awful the HRC character looked? This is just one more example of the occult – the media cover-up to the rescue, a recurring theme.
Randy Rhodes is shameless in her many attacks. She only takes calls from people who agree with her and call her the goddess, with an occasional call from a nutter that she talks over to drown out and then claims she is allowing the opposition to speak. Opposition posts to her blog are met with threats and are not posted.
One of her latest is to spend three hours a day deny all the information about BO’s people going to the Canadian Government and claiming that it was really HRC’s people who did this and then blamed BO. The fact that this has been denied many times by the Canadians does not deter her. Once she gets her teeth in a lie she will not let go.
Canadian PM Harper's office:Clinton Campaign never contacted us ever by bradydundee,
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:43:05 PM ESTCanadian PM's Office: Hillary Camp Made No Backchannel Assurances on NAFTA Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.
The upshot of all this intensive media bias may be fueling increasing efforts on the part of Hillary supporters to work harder and has certainly brought new people in eager to help and who are exposing and blogging about the BO mobs at the polling places.
If the media and/or vote manipulation for BO prevails, there is already a move afloat among many women to write in HRC on their general election ballot. Their fear of the occult power that is fronting Obama is greater than their fear of another Republican in the White House.
"Hang on Sloopy. For all the invisible women, it's the only anthem they've got. And for their sake alone, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should not give up the fight. Tina Brown - Newsweek
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.com http://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
Friday, March 07, 2008
ICARUS REDUX
GenderGappers 2008 – 012
ICARUS REDUX
Finally it seems people are realizing that Barack Obama [BO] is an empty suit with a megaphoneyed preacher’s voice. Many voters woke up and got turned off by his Johnny-one-note calls for change without specifics. Style, yes - substance, no.
It is not so surprising that people are finding out there is no there, there. When he announced his candidacy he likened himself to Abraham Lincoln. The media made much of another tall, lanky Lincolnesque candidate coming out of Illinois.
From then on, he wrapped himself into one great American after another. Why? Because when one has little experience or substance, one either fakes it or steals the accomplishments of someone else.
So his campaign continually presented him to the crowds in the pseudo-regalia of a known hero, letting the luster of the real person encompass BO, thus giving him form and function.
This way the myth of a movement was built up with the aid of college students and an adoring media. By restricting his early appearances to college campuses, they created the illusion that thousands of citizens flocked to hear him. Then the illusion became a reality but one based on falsehood.
At various times before Super Tuesday, he was presented as another Martin Luther King II or the first black Jack Kennedy; the latter with the blessing of brother Ted Kennedy.
BO so obviously believed in his own omnipotence that he was caught off stride when the once friendly media, with the help of the Canadian Government discovered his feet of clay. So instead of owning up to bad judgment, he lied. Other chickens from his Chicago days also came home to roost.
Chris Matthews, who now gets thrills in his legs when he hears BO speak, had forgotten how he had formerly panned him for having NO record of accomplishments when he ran for the Senate. He was painfully reminded of this on his own program.
Todd Spivak wrote in a lengthy and comprehensive article: “I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature. I ran through a list of black Chicago lawmakers who had worked with Obama, and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election. Anybody but Obama," the late state Representative Lovana Jones told me at the time.
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full
His connections to the accused slumlord, Tony Resco, had been out there for weeks without the media noticing. But when Resco was brought to trial, it was big enough so even the media could either smell it, or tripped over it, and started asking BO real questions. At one point, he ran away from reporters questioning him and resorted to sulking, claiming the media was picking on him.
Following his several defeats in Super Tuesday II, his reaction was to whine and blame the media and HRC. This characteristic of blaming others for his own mistakes is hard to miss if one examines his history.
But the media has given him pass after pass. A marked contrast to the way it has treated HRC. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.”
BO happily accused HRC of lying and made other personal attacks against her during some of the debates, always denying that they were negative attacks. Now he is crying like a baby because his past has come out to bite him in the ass. He has declared himself pure and thus above the fray and resents being exposed. He calls everything negative attacks if it does not compliment him.
BO, a latter day Icarus, has flown high, using the wax and feathers of famous men. If he should be nominated and elected president, his trip to the sun will bring us all down in flames with him.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
ICARUS REDUX
Finally it seems people are realizing that Barack Obama [BO] is an empty suit with a megaphoneyed preacher’s voice. Many voters woke up and got turned off by his Johnny-one-note calls for change without specifics. Style, yes - substance, no.
It is not so surprising that people are finding out there is no there, there. When he announced his candidacy he likened himself to Abraham Lincoln. The media made much of another tall, lanky Lincolnesque candidate coming out of Illinois.
From then on, he wrapped himself into one great American after another. Why? Because when one has little experience or substance, one either fakes it or steals the accomplishments of someone else.
So his campaign continually presented him to the crowds in the pseudo-regalia of a known hero, letting the luster of the real person encompass BO, thus giving him form and function.
This way the myth of a movement was built up with the aid of college students and an adoring media. By restricting his early appearances to college campuses, they created the illusion that thousands of citizens flocked to hear him. Then the illusion became a reality but one based on falsehood.
At various times before Super Tuesday, he was presented as another Martin Luther King II or the first black Jack Kennedy; the latter with the blessing of brother Ted Kennedy.
BO so obviously believed in his own omnipotence that he was caught off stride when the once friendly media, with the help of the Canadian Government discovered his feet of clay. So instead of owning up to bad judgment, he lied. Other chickens from his Chicago days also came home to roost.
Chris Matthews, who now gets thrills in his legs when he hears BO speak, had forgotten how he had formerly panned him for having NO record of accomplishments when he ran for the Senate. He was painfully reminded of this on his own program.
Todd Spivak wrote in a lengthy and comprehensive article: “I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature. I ran through a list of black Chicago lawmakers who had worked with Obama, and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election. Anybody but Obama," the late state Representative Lovana Jones told me at the time.
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full
His connections to the accused slumlord, Tony Resco, had been out there for weeks without the media noticing. But when Resco was brought to trial, it was big enough so even the media could either smell it, or tripped over it, and started asking BO real questions. At one point, he ran away from reporters questioning him and resorted to sulking, claiming the media was picking on him.
Following his several defeats in Super Tuesday II, his reaction was to whine and blame the media and HRC. This characteristic of blaming others for his own mistakes is hard to miss if one examines his history.
But the media has given him pass after pass. A marked contrast to the way it has treated HRC. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.”
BO happily accused HRC of lying and made other personal attacks against her during some of the debates, always denying that they were negative attacks. Now he is crying like a baby because his past has come out to bite him in the ass. He has declared himself pure and thus above the fray and resents being exposed. He calls everything negative attacks if it does not compliment him.
BO, a latter day Icarus, has flown high, using the wax and feathers of famous men. If he should be nominated and elected president, his trip to the sun will bring us all down in flames with him.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
Saturday, March 01, 2008
BLINDED BY THE HALO
GenderGappers 2008 – 011
BLINDED BY THE HALO
“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”
Harper Lee (1926 - ), To Kill a Mockingbird, 1960
It comes as no surprise the BO surrogates of the mean stream media and its punditoodies are screaming for HRC to get out of the race.
It is, after all, the same media that insisted that all their criticisms of HRC were because she was the frontrunner and if BO were in front they would go after him. Ha, ha! When donkeys fly! The last debate with Tim Russet again entering in to pummel and accuse HRC while lobbing softballs to BO really refutes the notion of fairness.
Jonathan Alter’s altercation included his insistence that BO would win the nomination because …”he has made plenty of small mistakes, but we're past the point where a "likable enough" comment will turn the tide. When Obama bragged in the Austin debate about how "good" his speeches were, the boast barely registered.” http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725
With that assertion, Alter confirmed how the media lets BO slide every time instead of making a big lasting deal of it as it does when HRC does almost anything.
Why are so many of the media mavins coming out so strongly to insist that HRC quit the race? What are they afraid of if she stays in until every state has had a chance to vote?
The reason most often given is that it would divide the Democratic Party when it should be coming together behind one candidate. That might have some meaning if these same media talking heads were not constantly asserting that all was sweetness and light.
They explain that this is because all those for BO would happily support HRC if she won and all HRC voters would happily support BO. If that’s really the case, then let the Primary go on and may the best woman win.
But we know it isn’t. From Michelle Obama on down, most of the BO supporters assert that they will not support HRC. Many Democrats are afraid of BO’s inexperience and would not support him. They got burned by the much touted, sure to win Kerry, put forth by the Party "for his electibility" who turned out to be a spineless wimp.
We think the media is afraid of McCain and the Republicans as they are beginning to drive home some pretty heafty blows into BO’s gut and there is some evidence that this is getting to the voters.
The messianic tag has stuck and people are beginning to see a religious fervor mounting amid the adulation of of BO supporters for their cult leader. Most voters have had enough of religion in government. They understand how useful it is to some unprincibled leaders but the media has blinded their good sense with its lack of fair and open coverage of his campaign with few exceptions.
Slate has a great spoof in Chatterbox on the Obama Messiah Watch where contributions to his “Son of God”-ness can be listed:
“Readers are invited to submit similar details-Obama walking on water, Obama sating the hunger of 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes-from other Obama profiles. And also, of course, to repent, just in case the hour approacheth nigh.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2158578/
But the majority of the media, like Chris Matthews, who credits BO of “causing thrills to go up his leg” when he hears him speak, appear to have bought in to his Son of Godness who can do no wrong. Sadly so has Keith Olberman who has turned from slamming the Bushies to slamming the Clinton campaign.
Jonathan Alter and his ilk are fearsome that voters may wake up and the tide may turn in the end and they want HRC out of the contest before it happens. The Saturday Night Live skit about the media cosseting BO with a pillow and perks shook them up. It’s one thing for them to favor BO and deny it but when the mirror of comedy is held up in front of them they can no longer deny their bias.
#To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
BLINDED BY THE HALO
“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”
Harper Lee (1926 - ), To Kill a Mockingbird, 1960
It comes as no surprise the BO surrogates of the mean stream media and its punditoodies are screaming for HRC to get out of the race.
It is, after all, the same media that insisted that all their criticisms of HRC were because she was the frontrunner and if BO were in front they would go after him. Ha, ha! When donkeys fly! The last debate with Tim Russet again entering in to pummel and accuse HRC while lobbing softballs to BO really refutes the notion of fairness.
Jonathan Alter’s altercation included his insistence that BO would win the nomination because …”he has made plenty of small mistakes, but we're past the point where a "likable enough" comment will turn the tide. When Obama bragged in the Austin debate about how "good" his speeches were, the boast barely registered.” http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725
With that assertion, Alter confirmed how the media lets BO slide every time instead of making a big lasting deal of it as it does when HRC does almost anything.
Why are so many of the media mavins coming out so strongly to insist that HRC quit the race? What are they afraid of if she stays in until every state has had a chance to vote?
The reason most often given is that it would divide the Democratic Party when it should be coming together behind one candidate. That might have some meaning if these same media talking heads were not constantly asserting that all was sweetness and light.
They explain that this is because all those for BO would happily support HRC if she won and all HRC voters would happily support BO. If that’s really the case, then let the Primary go on and may the best woman win.
But we know it isn’t. From Michelle Obama on down, most of the BO supporters assert that they will not support HRC. Many Democrats are afraid of BO’s inexperience and would not support him. They got burned by the much touted, sure to win Kerry, put forth by the Party "for his electibility" who turned out to be a spineless wimp.
We think the media is afraid of McCain and the Republicans as they are beginning to drive home some pretty heafty blows into BO’s gut and there is some evidence that this is getting to the voters.
The messianic tag has stuck and people are beginning to see a religious fervor mounting amid the adulation of of BO supporters for their cult leader. Most voters have had enough of religion in government. They understand how useful it is to some unprincibled leaders but the media has blinded their good sense with its lack of fair and open coverage of his campaign with few exceptions.
Slate has a great spoof in Chatterbox on the Obama Messiah Watch where contributions to his “Son of God”-ness can be listed:
“Readers are invited to submit similar details-Obama walking on water, Obama sating the hunger of 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes-from other Obama profiles. And also, of course, to repent, just in case the hour approacheth nigh.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2158578/
But the majority of the media, like Chris Matthews, who credits BO of “causing thrills to go up his leg” when he hears him speak, appear to have bought in to his Son of Godness who can do no wrong. Sadly so has Keith Olberman who has turned from slamming the Bushies to slamming the Clinton campaign.
Jonathan Alter and his ilk are fearsome that voters may wake up and the tide may turn in the end and they want HRC out of the contest before it happens. The Saturday Night Live skit about the media cosseting BO with a pillow and perks shook them up. It’s one thing for them to favor BO and deny it but when the mirror of comedy is held up in front of them they can no longer deny their bias.
#To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
