Support NeoGAF

[sprsk]

Oh so desperate.

 

[grandjedi6]

Man, Obama is going to flatten those staffers if Hillary doesn't get to them first

 

[Kildace]

Wow, if Clinton somehow wins this nomination she will never, ever be elected president. This is political suicide ..

 

[sprsk]

Clinton should probably control her staffers a little better.

 

[typhonsentra]

Oh so desperate.

I can see this one coming back to hurt her, but then again I doubt Obama would push the story as he wants to distance himself from those old rumors.

 

[ralexand]

Looks like Silly Time is really here now.

Why does that staffer think that that picture would be used negatively against Clinton if it was her in it? Don't get the logic.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

This whole thing is just that final burst of Dennis Muren energy released when The Emperor was thrown into the Death Star Core.

 

[APF]

It’s All About Him

Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

Fast forward to last Monday in Wisconsin. Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century. And most Americans — and most Democrats — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Barack Obama hastened to clarify his wife’s remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Obama further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Americans are engaging in the political process.”

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the Wisconsin speech, America’s illness goes far beyond a flawed political process: “Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

Obama likes to say, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama’s rhetorical skill makes his candidacy appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his followers. But the effectual truth of what Obama is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

via

Already people are getting sick of the hyperbolic emotional drivel that has propelled Obama's cult-of-personality. With the Obama campaign fully-embracing messianic and quasi-religious propaganda to brainwash naive and hopeful Americans into supporting his campaign--saying the mere act of voting for him will "fix our souls"--does this not, as the above suggests, leave him wide-open to the more humble, secular, and--lets face it--sober campaign of John McCain? Discuss.

 

[RubxQub]

via

Discuss.

No thanks.

We've seen the argument so many times disregarding Obama's credentials and only focusing on his speaking. This is just another one.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

via

Already people are getting sick of the hyperbolic emotional drivel that has propelled Obama's cult-of-personality. With the Obama campaign fully-embracing messianic and quasi-religious propaganda to brainwash naive and hopeful Americans into supporting his campaign--saying the mere act of voting for him will "fix our souls"--does this not, as the above suggests, leave him wide-open to the more humble, secular, and--lets face it--sober campaign of John McCain? Discuss.

This is such a core logical fallacy:

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

that I just can't see the sense in the rest. A "grandiose explanation"? First of all, he's fucking dead right. It's disgraceful that a roomful of Senators and Congressmen and Women can wear that, claim patriotism, and then rack up the body count of Americans and Iraqis in a dumbass, batshit war.

So, no. It's not going to double back on him. As much as his supporters are mocked and maligned, they're clearly a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

 

[Goreomedy]

Discuss.

We already have.

Thanks.

 

[APF]

No thanks.

We've seen the argument so many times disregarding Obama's credentials and only focusing on his speaking. This is just another one.

This isn't an article about credentials.

This is such a core logical fallacy:

that I just can't see the sense in the rest. A "grandiose explanation"? First of all, he's fucking dead right.

How is a disagreement on a debatable point accurately termed, "a core logical fallacy?"

It's disgraceful that a roomful of Senators and Congressmen and Women can wear that, claim patriotism, and then rack up the body count of Americans and Iraqis in a dumbass, batshit war.

Unfortunately, that's not what Obama said at all. He said people who--like him--wear that pin are not patriots, that they--like him--feel it's a proxy for feelings of patriotism that--like his wife--he didn't feel.

So, no. It's not going to double back on him. As much as his supporters are mocked and maligned, they're clearly a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

If that's the case, then it's a forgone conclusion that the BS messianic rhetoric WILL indeed backfire on him. Obama better "hope" that his supporters don't "change" into people who are too smart for that BS.

 

[RubxQub]

This isn't an article about credentials.

Precisely

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

If that's the case, then it's a forgone conclusion that the BS messianic rhetoric WILL indeed backfire on him. Obama better "hope" that his supporters don't "change" into people who are too smart for that BS.

I'm sorry, I couldn't really get behind your sensible rhetoric because I was distracted by your avatar's implication that a Father and Daughter are about to fuck each other.

All you did was insult his supporters. Again. Laughable.

 

[grandjedi6]

via

It’s All About Him

by WILLIAM KRISTOL

Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

Fast forward to last Monday in Wisconsin. Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century. And most Americans — and most Democrats — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Barack Obama hastened to clarify his wife’s remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Obama further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Americans are engaging in the political process.”

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the Wisconsin speech, America’s illness goes far beyond a flawed political process: “Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

Obama likes to say, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama’s rhetorical skill makes his candidacy appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his followers. But the effectual truth of what Obama is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

Already people are getting sick of the hyperbolic emotional drivel that has propelled Obama's cult-of-personality. With the Obama campaign fully-embracing messianic and quasi-religious propaganda to brainwash naive and hopeful Americans into supporting his campaign--saying the mere act of voting for him will "fix our souls"--does this not, as the above suggests, leave him wide-open to the more humble, secular, and--lets face it--sober campaign of John McCain? Discuss.

"Oh, Bill Kristol, Are You Ever Right?"

Seriously APF, Bill Kristol?

 

[APF]

Precisely

Yes, you were precisely incorrect about the substance of the article. Which prompts the question, what other judgments regarding substance might you be incorrect about?

I'm sorry, I couldn't really get behind your sensible rhetoric because I was distracted by your avatar's implication that a Father and Daughter are about to fuck each other.

Ok...

All you did was insult his supporters. Again. Laughable.

I'm giving his supporters more of the benefit-of-the-doubt than their rhetoric about "healing our souls" surely does.


grandjedi6: are you familiar with the "core logical fallacy" known as the ad-hominem attack?

 

[Particle Physicist]

via

Already people are getting sick of the hyperbolic emotional drivel that has propelled Obama's cult-of-personality. With the Obama campaign fully-embracing messianic and quasi-religious propaganda to brainwash naive and hopeful Americans into supporting his campaign--saying the mere act of voting for him will "fix our souls"--does this not, as the above suggests, leave him wide-open to the more humble, secular, and--lets face it--sober campaign of John McCain? Discuss.

i thought there were no negative article about obama? what gives??!!!

 

[DrForester]

Natalie Portman looks like she's being forced to be there.

 

[APF]

i thought there were no negative article about obama? what gives??!!!

I never suggested no Op Ed contributors ever penned something that wasn't totally fatuous; look at Krugman for example.


Ok, so now that all the knee-jerk and easily-deflected irrational attacks have come my way, can we have a real conversation?

 

[grandjedi6]

grandjedi6: are you familiar with the "core logical fallacy" known as the ad-hominem attack?

Have you heard of "it's Bill fucking Kristol" and "We've had this discussion 100 times already"

 

[APF]

Why would Bill fuck Kristol? Do you really mean some stripper named "Crystal?"

 

[RubxQub]

Yes, you were precisely incorrect about the substance of the article. Which prompts the question, what other judgments regarding substance might you be incorrect about?

...

You are really freaking annoying, you know that?

 

[thefro]

LOL, Clinton campaign going for under 10% of the African-American population voting for them. :lol

 

[grandjedi6]

Why would Bill fuck Kristol? Do you really mean some stripper named "Crystal?"

A stripper would be a less biased and more legitamate source than Bill Kristol. Kristol is a neoconservative who hates Health care and loves the Iraq War. He thinks the Bush isnt' conservative enough. He isn't trying to make a comment of Obama's popularity, he is just attacking the presumed democratic nominee. Hell, Kristol is even a main advisor for McCain's campaign.

 

[Aurvant]

2 cents: Hillary probably wont beat Obama (he is leading in Texas by double digits) and honestly even if he does get the nomination I sure do hope he doesn't get elected.

It's not the fact that he isn't experienced or whatever the arguments are about him these days but it bothers me that he is the number 1 most liberal senator in the country. Not to mention his wife is batshit crazy. Those are just personal reasons why I don't like him but I also hate his platform as well.....his view on the issues are...well...askewed.

From Mrs. Obama's mouth:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

In the famous words of Ace (from AOSHQ): "Hey, Michelle, Barack? I don't mean this offensively, but eat my fucking balls, okay?"

Seriously, I know people have rallied around the Obamessiah like its the second coming but more and more lately all I'm hearing is more and more of a rhetoric that would befit someone more along the lines of the communist reds or some socialist movement.

 

[APF]

...

You are really freaking annoying, you know that?

While I agree that hard truths can be painful to acknowledge, there are certain Presidential candidates who suggest those hard truths must nonetheless be heard. Can you give me an example of a Presidential candidate who claims to be a teller of such truths?

Even the most die-hard Obama sycophant has to understand that, after the coke-high wears off, this is the most obvious and easy line of attack he will face in the GE, and it marks a clear distinction between the tenor of his campaign and that of the other front-runner.


grandjedi6: all of which means absolutely nothing. Unless you mean to tell me a large amount of Americans should instantly ignore anything your messiah says, because there are real disagreements on policy between them. Is that an example of "new politics" and reaching-out to the opposition?

 

[Crushed]

I think APF is just trying to discredit Clinton supporters so that his fellow Mussleman terrorist Biraq Hussien Osama al-Jihad will win the election.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

While I agree that hard truths can be painful to acknowledge, there are certain Presidential candidates who suggest those hard truths must nonetheless be heard. Can you give me an example of a Presidential candidate who claims to be a teller of such truths?

Even the most die-hard Obama sycophant has to understand that, after the coke-high wears off, this is the most obvious and easy line of attack he will face in the GE, and it marks a clear distinction between the tenor of his campaign and that of the other front-runner.

grandjedi6: all of which means absolutely nothing. Unless you mean to tell me a large amount of Americans should instantly ignore anything your messiah says, because there are real disagreements on policy between them. Is that an example of "new politics" and reaching-out to the opposition?

It's an attack he's already refuted in front of thousands of people, and millions more watching.

 

[StoOgE]

Natalie Portman looks like she's being forced to be there.

:lol

I cant be the only one who...

:lol

 

[grandjedi6]

APF, I'm not going to waste my time responding to Bill Kristol's biased article or your inflammatory comments. If there are any worries of McCain attacking Obama's hype or policy differences between the two, then Obama will counter them in the election, as he is the candidate

 

[gkryhewy]

Unfortunately, that's not what Obama said at all. He said people who--like him--wear that pin are not patriots, that they--like him--feel it's a proxy for feelings of patriotism that--like his wife--he didn't feel.

But he didn't wear the pin. I think what you were trying to say here broke down somewhere, perhaps due to excessive use of hyphens.

I agree that John McCain is a strong candidate, and is probably the only republican in this election cycle who would have a chance. To beat him, the democratic nominee will need to energize the democratic base as well as attract a lion's share of independents (both of which I would argue Hillary Clinton is incapable of doing, and increasingly so given the trajectory of her campaign).

 

[Sharp]

Wow, APF, you just made me realize why there's an ignore feature--it's for people whose posts you've begun to automatically skip over anyway. And I feel all the wiser for it!

Edit: Wow, that's distracting. Moreso than the original post, I dare say.

 

[Walshicus]

Aah


edit: Triumph: what you're saying is, I should find ways to "hydrate" on Obama's campaign. I see.

Yes. With urine.

 

[Triumph]

APF, as someone who has grown to at times appreciate you and your posts, I have to say that was fucking low. SHAME ON YOU, APF.

 

[Deku]

What drives a democrat to post an article from a neocon?

denial, anger, revenge?

 

[pxleyes]

What drives a democrat to post an article from a neocon?

denial, anger, revenge?

I hope you're not referring to APF. :lol :lol :lol

 

[Tamanon]

APF isn't a Democrat, he's a conscientous objector to the world.

 

[Triumph]

Yeah, I wouldn't call APF a democrat. He's a moderate that for some reason became infatuated with the Clinton candidacy. Still, Bill Kristol? It's like me posting an article by Cynthia McKinney and expecting it to be taken seriously.

 

[siamesedreamer]

In the famous words of Ace (from AOSHQ): "Hey, Michelle, Barack? I don't mean this offensively, but eat my fucking balls, okay?"

Seriously, I know people have rallied around the Obamessiah like its the second coming but more and more lately all I'm hearing is more and more of a rhetoric that would befit someone more along the lines of the communist reds or some socialist movement.

QFT

Its part of the same meme he's been using for a while now. After the SC win he said:

"This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that [pass] for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation — a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity," Obama said.

I'm sorry. But, half of Americans already don't pay income taxes. And he's proposing to add another 17 million to that category via tax cuts/credits. That isn't shared sacrifice - that's wealth redistribution.

 

[Lost Fragment]

The cult-of-personality shit really is getting annoying. Something in my gut tells me it might hurt him in the long run if it keeps up.

After it became obvious that Ron Paul was going nowhere and Obama was officially endorsed by the internets as a consequence, I had a feeling this would happen.

 

[harSon]

The cult-of-personality shit really is getting annoying. Something in my gut tells me it might hurt him in the long run if it keeps up.

After it became obvious that Ron Paul was going nowhere and Obama was officially endorsed by the internets as a consequence, I had a feeling this would happen.

I'm pretty sure most of us do it because it annoys people like you.

 

[Lost Fragment]

I'm pretty sure most of us do it because it annoys people like you.

People like me?

 

[Corwood Rep]

I think APF is just trying to discredit Clinton supporters so that his fellow Mussleman terrorist Biraq Hussien Osama al-Jihad will win the election.

Post of the Decade?

P.S. Of course the cult of personality shit is annoying, but I gotta be honest; it's a lot less annoying than any of the campaign tactics the Hillary folk are using.

 

[Aurvant]

QFT

Its part of the same meme he's been using for a while now. After the SC win he said:

"This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that [pass] for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation — a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity," Obama said.

I'm sorry. But, half of Americans already don't pay income taxes. And he's proposing to add another 17 million to that category via tax cuts/credits. That isn't shared sacrifice - that's wealth redistribution.

Exactly, he wants to basically use federal government powers to steal away more money from people who are actually successful and redistribute it to the unwealthy. For people who are living on the government cheese they are going to love this idea because, really, they are knots on a log and don't really want to work anyways. They just want a handout.

For those of us who actually work for our money and who are very fond of the idea of keeping MORE of it this is a nightmare.

 

[harSon]

People like me?

People that are annoyed by things like this

 

[Chipopo]

Even the most die-hard Obama sycophant has to understand that, after the coke-high wears off, this is the most obvious and easy line of attack he will face in the GE, and it marks a clear distinction between the tenor of his campaign and that of the other front-runner.

Hillary is trying this line of attack now and it makes her look foolish. You can't successfully prop yourself up on an "anti-enthusiasm" platform for obvious reasons. Assuming there is a 'cooling-off' phase as Obama is forced to discuss political minutia in the GE, he will be re-evaluated based on his competency during those discussions. There seems to be little suggesting that Obama is incompetent when it comes to articulating policy, however.

And that's really what all these articles come down to. The underlying motive is to promote the idea that Obama is all hot air, but he has a detailed platform position on his web-site and he's run an incredibly successful campaign. So these articles shift their focus away from Obama himself and towards the 'cult' that surrounds him, painting his rhetorical skills as a negative simply because they are anomalous.

 

[harSon]

Exactly, he wants to basically use federal government powers to steal away more money from people who are actually successful and redistribute it to the unwealthy. For people who are living on the government cheese they are going to love this idea because, really, they are knots on a log and don't really want to work anyways. They just want a handout.

For those of us who actually work for our money and who are very fond of the idea of keeping MORE of it this is a nightmare.

I say we just throw all the unwealthy bastards in a shanty town and call it a day.

 

[ZeroTolerance]

Ohio - Obama 40 and Hillary 51. Hillary's lead has gone down from 21 points to 11 in just one week.

 

[v1cious]

http://drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

bah, so weaksauce. Taking a pic from the National Examiner which was one notch about the Weekly World News is embarrassing.

so PhoenixDark... have you already decided where you're gonna spend March?:lol

 

[syllogism]

SurveyUSA says 1 in 4 Texas democratic primary voters have already voted, poll will be out at 11pm est