General Pres. Candidate 08 Thread

[Usually Lurkin]

she is John Edwards' official "blogmaster." Her vulgar and hate-filled anti-religion rantings are no doubt being read now more than ever, and it makes me sad that she's an Austinite. Only a select few could find humor underneat the tone of her rantings. Imagine madape's most offensive posts of the past directed at religious groups rather than Bradley-haters.

[WurzburgBorn]

I loved Colbert's coments on Obama this past week. Paraphrasing: He's not the first African American to run for president, but he is the first one to run who has a prayer...which is funny because two of them were reverends.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

For those of you who've been following the John Edwards' official blogger bruhaha, here are The Pandagon Papers (very funny, with lots of cussin):
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ndagon_pa.html

Edwards, by enlisting a self-described "cum guzzling boozehound," demonstrates for all to see why he can't match Godzillary's political acumen.

Deep down in her black cold heart Godzillary may love cum guzzling boozehound abortion fanatics who hate anything that smacks of religion, but she'd never be stupid enough to provide tangible evidence for the public to see at such a critical point in the game.

[capitalcity]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Deep down in her black cold heart Godzillary may love cum guzzling boozehound abortion fanatics who hate anything that smacks of religion, but she'd never be stupid enough to provide tangible evidence for the public to see at such a critical point in the game.

If you plan on printing up bumper stickers and making T-shirts, I'll buy one of each.

[fluid.forty.one]

So far Obama is my favorite candidate.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

So far Obama is my favorite candidate.

Was kinky as well?

[Usually Lurkin]

Marcotte has resigned from Edwards' campaign. It's the fault of everyone but herself.
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/12/announcement/

[MavKikiNYC]

F*cking pacifists. If Edwards and his campaign can't stand up to a two-bit religious bigot like Bill Donohue, how the hell can the American public expect him to engage the bigger evils like the Husseins, the Ahmadinejads, the Kim Il Sungs, the Osamass and the like?


And if his campaign can't vet campaign staff any more effectively than this, how the hell is he going to put together a cabinet?

Marcotte was probably in over her head. The things that drew attention to her as a blogger (the effective use of extreme and caustic lanauge to aexpose and ridicule social/religious/political hypocrisy) were going to be difficult to translate to a campaign wtih any mainstream appeal.

Maybe this will make her REALLY, REALLY bitter. Write on, Marcotte, and aim for the nuts.

Edwards Blogger Quits

By Kate Phillips
Amanda Marcotte, the blogger whose hiring by John Edwards came under fire last week from the Catholic League, a conservative organization, announced on her blog today that she was quitting Mr. Edwards’s presidential campaign. Ms. Marcotte said that Bill Donohue, the head of the Catholic group, had created a situation “where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign.”


Mr. Donohue had vowed to blast the Edwards campaign at every turn for employing Ms. Marcotte and another blogger, Melissa McEwan, whose writings he deemed anti-Catholic. Liberal bloggers have called Mr. Donohue anti-Semitic and anti-gay.


Ms. Marcotte wrote:

“No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. “

She credited the liberal blogosphere for fighting back against calls by Mr. Donohue for her and Ms. McEwan to be fired. While Mr. Edwards decided last week to keep them on his staff, he said he was personally offended by some of their posts. Some moderate Catholic groups also chimed in, saying they found the writings offensive.


And some conservative bloggers continued to monitor Ms. Marcotte’s writings. Earlier today, Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor at the National Review, wrote: “You’d think after her job was spared, Amanda Marcotte would lay off the Virgin birth for the duration of the primary season, but no.” And linked to Ms. Marcotte’s review over the weekend of the film “Children of Men.”

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

[B]. . . a two-bit religious bigot like Bill Donohue. . .

Marcotte was probably in over her head. The things that drew attention to her as a blogger (the effective use of extreme and caustic lanauge to aexpose and ridicule social/religious/political hypocrisy) . . .

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Marcotte's a bigot, and her place in the Edwards' campaign was a mistake by Edwards, but is indicative of the leftist position on religious bigotry.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Marcotte's a bigot, and her place in the Edwards' campaign was a mistake by Edwards, but is indicative of the leftist position on religious bigotry.

Marcotte and Bill Donohue do EXACTLY the same thing, play EXACTLY the same role for their respective causes. Donohue represents a more establsihed entity, with deeper pockets, and his bigoted rantings are more personally lucrative to him (to the extent of about $300K per year).

The other difference I see between them is that Marcotte uses extreme language to protest religious bigotry; Bill Donohue shills in favor of it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Marcotte and Bill Donohue do EXACTLY the same thing, play EXACTLY the same role for their respective causes. Donohue represents a more establsihed entity, with deeper pockets, and his bigoted rantings are more personally lucrative to him (to the extent of about $300K per year).

The other difference I see between them is that Marcotte uses extreme language to protest religious bigotry; Bill Donohue shills in favor of it.

How you call her anti-Christian/anti-Catholic rantings protests against religiuos bigotry I don't know. Protests for bigotry, maybe.

I don't know much about Bill Donohue, but your comments seem to reflect the tone of what I've heard. As for the roles they play, I hear stuff like in Marcotte's blog get aired out by liberals much more often than I hear anti-semitic rants (like I've heard attributed to Donohue) by conservatives.

Has Donohue ever been hired as a spokesperson by a candidate?

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Has Donohue ever been hired as a spokesperson by a candidate?

No, not directly, not to my knowledge.

I think that the extremists within the Republican party (and also the Catholic church) are generally a little more sophisticated and subtle in the way that they use tools like Donohue.

They set him up as a separate tax-exempt entity, fund him, probably toss him some dollars as an adjunct "scholar" at the Heritage Foundation and keep him spewing his bile year-round, year-in-year-out.

For that reason, while it may be disappointing to Marcotte personally not to be directly associated with the Edwards campaign, I think that she will actually benefit professionally from being able to continue to work without being constrained by a political campaign's namby-pambiness. She may even benefit financially for her martyrdom. I hear she's already a leading contender for next year's Grammy awards.

[purplefrog]

The employment of Marcotte and McEwan by Edwards is unforgiveable imo. I had no respect for Edwards before this, but now I think even less of him (didn't think that was possible). Kerry and Edwards ..... weren't they the Democratic nominees in 2004? Big time losers, but we already knew that didn't we? These guys need to take a long walk over a short bridge.

On the other hand, this might be good news for Obama or some other Dem candidate. If Edwards' support withers away it has to go somewhere. I kind of like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, but that is mostly because he has a sense of humor (he also has a pretty impressive resume). Did anyone see his commercials during the last Governor's campaign? Pretty funny. A sense of humor in a presidential campaign could be a breath of fresh air.

[mcsluggo]

man, talking about missing the point.

(if i may be so bold as to presume) I think kiki was saying they are the yin and the yang of each other. they are mirror images and play the EXACT same role of boogey man extreme target, lobbing volleys of hand grenades that their respective sides may vaguely (and sporadically) agree with, but would never say in the same way.


for example
Ciny Sheehan == Jerry Falwell

people that support the same causes may occationally agree with something one or the other says, and may occasionally be happy that there is a tireless advocate of a cause they believe in constantly harping on the cause, and happy OCCASIONALLY for the attention that person brings to their pet cause... but they also often wish the boogar eatin moron (that is purported to be on the same side of the issue) would shut the f* up and quit arming the opposite side so much.


My favorite example of the "yin-yang" couple, a pair that (in this case) existed in a perfect symbiotic relationship of equals, were COMPLETELY identical, and in this case could NEVER survive without the other:

Yassir Arafat == Ariel Sharone

you could never say that there views were similar (obviously)... but they were CABON COPY EXACT REPLICAS of each other, formed in mirror image.

[WurzburgBorn]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

So far Obama is my favorite candidate.

me too, fluid.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

man, talking about missing the point.

was that directed at me? I think I get kiki's point, but don't (entirely) agree with it.

(if i may be so bold as to presume) I think kiki was saying they are the yin and the yang of each other. they are mirror images and play the EXACT same role of boogey man extreme target, lobbing volleys of hand grenades that their respective sides may vaguely (and sporadically) agree with, but would never say in the same way.

my point was that though I don't know the specifics of what Donohue is all about, I've heard the boogey man type grenades that Marcotte throws very regularly proclaimed. I've never personally heard any of the type of anti-semitism that I've heard attributed to Donohue. Furthermore, Marcotte was hired either inspite of or because of her blogging to be in an official campaing for a heavy weight Democratic candidate. I'm not aware of Donohue ever being in such a position.

Since I spend a lot of time in the Baptist church (a bastion of religiouis conservativism) and a lot of time at a University (a bastion of anti-religious liberalism) I think this means that Marcotte reflects better the common liberal voice than Donohue reflects the common conservative voice.

Mavkiki seems to conclude that the Republicans are more sophisticated and subtle with their boogey men. That's fair enough. To me, it means the boogey men play a much more prominant role in Democratic party (at least on the face, as the image of the party).

I think this can only further hurt the Democrats.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Furthermore, Marcotte was hired either inspite of or because of her blogging to be in an official campaing for a heavy weight Democratic candidate.

lessee....why did a white male north carolina lawyer hire a foul mouthed feminist blogger from austin in advance of democratic primaries? Was it

a) because he was trying to appeal rural religious right white republican males? or
b) because he was trying to attract dem party leftwing, feminist types?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the party he was trying to play to was the leftwing feminist types.

IOW.........Marcotte was hired because of Godzillary.

Edwards needed something to show the chicks in the dem party that he's even more pro-baby-killin' and whatnot than godzillary. It was a miserably stupid ploy on edward's part, but Godzillary's practically insurmountable lead over the rest of the dem-gaggle has edwards in an early desparate position.

cheers

[jacktruth]

>

[jacktruth]

>

[jacktruth]

A great hope of the democrats? Sounds like John Kerry. Please tell me this isn't among the best the left has to offer. . .

Obama: Wasting His Own Breath
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, February 14, 2007

I have good news for everyone offended by the description of Sen. Barack Obama as "articulate." He has quickly shed any claim to that label. Indeed, Obama's remarks this week about American troops killed in Iraq were a bumbling, incoherent mess. You may now refer to him officially as the Inarticulate Barack Obama. (As for judging his current level of cleanliness and brightness, you know that's Joe Biden's milieu.)

At one of his opening presidential campaign events on the Iowa State University campus this weekend, Obama pandered energetically to the anti-war crowd. With his smooth voice rising and thousands of fans goading him on, he proclaimed: "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Yes, "wasted." Squandered. Pointless. Down the drain. Meaningless. Video footage of the speech shows Sen. Obama delivering his scripted words carefully and confidently. No umms or ahhs or pauses as he argued that each and every member of the military who volunteered to serve and died in Iraq "wasted" his/her life.

This revealing slip of Obama's tongue and mind -- or "Obamanation," as conservative blogger Scott Johnson at Power Line (powerlineblog.com) calls it -- did not play well among countless service members and their families who actually support their mission and sacrifice. Who repeatedly volunteer to go back even after the war has taken a turn for the worse. Who believe their work enhances their children's and our children's safety. Who risk their lives purposefully and of their own free will. Despite every best effort of the Democrats, media and anti-war movement to infantilize or demonize them, their voices are heard.

Listen to the father of Marine Sgt. Joshua J. Frazier, who was killed by a sniper in Iraq last week on his third tour of duty: "He believed in the United States and believed what he was doing was right. He gave his life for what he thought was the right thing to do," Rick Frazier said.

Remember the words of Marine Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, who died in a 2005 firefight in Ramadi: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq . . . I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Several days after taking flak for his disparaging comments dishonoring such heroism, Obama blubbered about what he really meant.

''I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'' he told the Des Moines Register. Well, then what dastardly saboteur slipped it into his well-rehearsed stump speech? What supernatural force produced the guttural noise that glided effortlessly from his voicebox through his lips and pronounced the term "wasted"?

"What I would say -- and meant to say -- is that their service hasn't been honored," Obama told The New York Times and other reporters in Nashua, N.H., "because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed." As opposed to pulling out precipitously?

Obama offered the standard "sorry-if-I-offended-anyone" disclaimer: " . . . I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown. You know, and if you look at all the other speeches that I've made, that is always the starting point in my view of this war.''

Except on the first day of the biggest campaign of his life, that wasn't the starting point. The starting point of his discussion on the troops in Iraq began with the letter "w" and ended with "-asted."

"Even as I said it," Obama claims, "I realized I had misspoken."

So what, one wonders, prevented him from immediately correcting himself there on stage, as thousands cheered the term he now says he immediately regretted?

Words fail.
__________________

[dude1394]

Hillary is the best the left has to offer.

[WurzburgBorn]

"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Shame on you Obama for apologizing for that bit of honesty, so uncharacteristic of politicians.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by WurzburgBorn

"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Shame on you Obama for apologizing for that bit of honesty, so uncharacteristic of politicians.

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. -- Thomas Paine, 1776

[dude1394]

"My friends and I who are the old women of the neighborhood went to the soldiers and welcomed them and prayed that God would help them to defeat the terrorists," said Um Sabah of the Mashtaal area in eastern Baghdad. "Although, the presence of army and vehicles is not very comfortable, we welcome it because it is for the sake of Iraq."

[WurzburgBorn]

Re: the Paine quote:
The way I see it, the modern equivalent to those he refers to, deserving the thanks of men and women, have been in the streets of America making their voice heard protesting the tyranny of this war. It takes a lot more courage to criticize your government when it stands for evil than to follow it blindly as it follows an immoral course of action.

But then, it's quite obvious from republican discourse since 9/11 that any criticism of the Bush administration will be considered aiding terrorists. Orwell would be proud.

[Five-ofan]

dude i agree with you on the war and thats actually a great qoute but i would be weary of using paine qoutes as it brings his history into question and that guy was just a nut.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by WurzburgBorn

Re: the Paine quote:
The way I see it, the modern equivalent to those he refers to, deserving the thanks of men and women, have been in the streets of America making their voice heard protesting the tyranny of this war. It takes a lot more courage to criticize your government when it stands for evil than to follow it blindly as it follows an immoral course of action.

But then, it's quite obvious from republican discourse since 9/11 that any criticism of the Bush administration will be considered aiding terrorists. Orwell would be proud.

Pathetic. So what is the "courage" of the folks in the streets of western countries protesting the US? It's the new fun thing to do for goodness sakes. Where are the water cannons where are the prisions filling up with those dissidents.

Pathetic to actually attempt to compare the patriots of the US revolution (who would have been hanged as traitors if caught) and a bunch of unwashed old hippies walking around with signs.

If you want to see some courage from civilians, check out those folks in baghdad or lebanon. If you want to see courage from US citizens check out those same soldiers in baghdad overthrowing tyrrany.

[WurzburgBorn]

The way I see it, what's pathetic is thinking that insulting America's long tradition of protest and civil disobedience can somehow constitute patriotism.

If you want to live in a country free of protest, maybe a communist nation would be better. I hear they're less tolerant of the dirty hippies there.

[Mavdog]

Obama is being criticized for stating what could very well be a truth.

if the us forces pull out such as Obama has called for (one of the first acts as pres he says) then yes, the lives of those servicemen would have been "wasted".

if the situation in iraq does not improve and the country turns into a violence torn anarchic state, then yes, those lives were wasted.

if however the iraqi state emerges that provides a secure country, then no the lives of the us servicemen were not wasted, they were given for the good of the iraqi people.

quite a sacrifice indeed, giving up one's life for the good of other people. let's all hope that proves to be the case.

in the meantime, no michelle malkin, obama is not "inarticulate". perhaps you should read the speeches by george bush, those can be very inarticulate at times. and what of the veep cheney, who has said much more inarticulate phrases about those who disagree with the current administration.

and then of course there's the real "inarticulate" candidate joe biden, plenty of meat on that bone for michelle....go for it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by WurzburgBorn

The way I see it, what's pathetic is thinking that insulting America's long tradition of protest and civil disobedience can somehow constitute patriotism.

If you want to live in a country free of protest, maybe a communist nation would be better. I hear they're less tolerant of the dirty hippies there.

I have no problems with protestors but I sure have a problem comparing them(especially western style) to the soldiers and folks who are putting something on the line. The equivalence is strikingly pathethic.

[WurzburgBorn]

We all serve our country how we see fit.
To me what's pathetic is that we can allow our citizens to die on the other side of the world naively believing they are serving our country. I don't question their desire. Most soldiers want to serve our country. But the truth is, they would actually have a fighting chance to succeed in that goal if they stayed here and did volunteer work in their local community instead.

[dude1394]

We'd all be better off if everyone stayed home and sang kumbaya. But there are still policemen on the street even at home. In other words...bad people out there. And good people who are willing to stand up for those that cannot.

[WurzburgBorn]

Alright, I'll just say leave at at this, then and be done with this back and forth for now:
I agree with you on that last point generally, I just disagree about who it is that is standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

[Ninkobei]

Guys, as many GOOD things there is to say about fighting this Iraqi War...there is double, no - TRIPLE the ammount of bad things to say. How about an average of 50 civilians dieing each week. The attacks obviously arent slowing down while we are over there, so maybe it really IS time for a different approach.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Obama is being criticized for stating what could very well be a truth.

if the us forces pull out such as Obama has called for (one of the first acts as pres he says) then yes, the lives of those servicemen would have been "wasted".

if the situation in iraq does not improve and the country turns into a violence torn anarchic state, then yes, those lives were wasted.....

I think that those who are offended by his choice of words might think that the effort and cause is worth the sacrifice. That would be what makes it noble.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think that those who are offended by his choice of words might think that the effort and cause is worth the sacrifice. That would be what makes it noble.

does the nobility and the sacrifice contradict their lives being "wasted"? it seems that they aren't mutually exclusive....the question of waste is re: the result, nobility and sacrifice the motivation.

[purplefrog]

IMO, by using the word "wasted" you significantly deflate troop morale. This was a horrible choice of words by Obama. Simply horrible. I don't know if he meant what he said or if he is just naive to the effects of his language, but regardless it was a serious blunder. At least in part, I think he is showing his inexperience. He may have realized that he needed a crazy enthusiastic crowd to help him raise $$ (Clinton already has a bundle) and he took it too far. At any rate, he now has to live with his words, and he will and should be raked over the coals for this speech.

[mcsluggo]

Anyone here ever read "the Charge of the Light Brigade"?

http://poetry.eserver.org/light-brigade.html

Great poem. The whole thing honors the bravery and courage of 600 soldiers in an impossible mision bound for death. But underlying the poem is the fact that they are dying needlessly, it is a "mistake". The men are still admirable, their bravery and courage is awe-inspiring. It doesn't mean their death wasn't a mistake.

As a poem, the "mistake" is clear cut. It is a fact, because the poem can declare facts however it sees fit. Whether invading IRAQ was a mistake is up for debate, and people can intrepret the evidence one way or the other and come to their own conclusions. HOWEVER, it is a crock of SHIT to try to equate saying "Invading Iraq was a mistake" with "disrespecting the brave troops that serve there". Frankly it pisses me off... BOTH because it is insulting AND because it is such pathetic faulty logic, and people try to get away with it time-after-time-after-time-after-time-after....

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

[bold]
2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
[/bold]

3.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.


4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.


5.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.


6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Copied from Poems of Alfred Tennyson,
J. E. Tilton and Company, Boston, 1870

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

does the nobility and the sacrifice contradict their lives being "wasted"? it seems that they aren't mutually exclusive....the question of waste is re: the result, nobility and sacrifice the motivation.

no. The effort and cause are worth the sacrifice. Simply to try to win liberty for the people of Iraq is worth the sacrifice. The lives are not wasted. Even if the end result is not what we hope for, the people who are volunteering their lives are making the statement that the effort is worth the potential sacrifice. You may twist semantics another way in order to feel better about saying that their lives are wasted, but to be insensitive to their point of view is to disrespect them and their choice.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

HOWEVER, it is a crock of SHIT to try to equate saying "Invading Iraq was a mistake" with "disrespecting the brave troops that serve there". Frankly it pisses me off... BOTH because it is insulting AND because it is such pathetic faulty logic, and people try to get away with it time-after-time-after-time-after-time-after....

First, to say invading Iraq was a mistake is to say that all those who volunteered to actually do the work made a mistake. I can see how they might take that as disrespect. Second, Obama didn't just say that the invasion was a mistake. He said that the soldiers lives were wasted. Now that is an insensitive and very disrespectful thing to say about someone who voluntarily risked their life. That's true whether you agree with their decision or not.

edit: stupid grammar