Friday, January 25, 2008

SERIOUS MESSAGE FOR SUPER TUESDAY DEMOCRATS

...And because they see him for what he is -- one of them!

5 comments:

O' Tim said...

It's just getting stupider and stupider.

Was that Bill Bennett or Peter Ustinov? He could grow a beard and get some holiday work, or take Marlene Dietrich's advice and lay off the candy bars. What a sack!

Distributorcap said...

once i saw fred barnes i knew i was in for some nausea...

you know this is where we disagree ---- i just cannot stomach her as president -- not because she is not smart, not because she is not capable

mainly because if she is president -- if you think the partisan rancor is bad now or was bad under bill --- we aint seen nothing yet....

it will be beyond comprehension how bad it will get.

KELSO'S NUTS said...

O'T:

How he shows his face in public is beyond me. The author of the THE BOOK OF VIRTUES and some racist piece of crap about black superpredators comin' to gitcha who turned out to have a massive gambling jones plus a taste for hookers, bondage and the white stuff? Wow.

D-CAPny: You know you're my paisan but your attitude is exactly why Democrats lose the "image" debate. You can't be afraid of the fight. You can't always be looking for things "to be fair" or "to be nice." The Republicans don't. They push it all the way. All the time. So, they look like idiots every now and then. So what? They win even when they lose. Get off of Obama's silly notions of "beyond partisanship." That's collaboration. That's fucking Vichy, man.

Be a Democrat. Or don't be a Democrat. But for heaven's sakes, man, don't be scared and don't split the difference. What do you have to lose? Better to have a loyal partisan in there upon whom progressives can put pressure much the way the Christian Right puts pressure on the Republicans.

Unless, you really LIKE Obama. And if that's the case, I say "mazel tov." Vote your conscience.

I write this really with less at stake than you do. Although, modern Panama definitely acknowledges a debt to Bill Clinton, and we're all rooting like crazy for HRC here, it's now a sovereign nation completely separate from the USA. What's the worst that can happen, President Huckabee sends forces to invade Panama and Venezuela and consolidate the trio of client states with Colombia? Do you know how easy it is to disappear by your own volition? How easy it is to acquire legit ID from anywhere?

That disaster scenario I painted for myself involves President Huckabee (or Giuliani or Walnuts).

No matter how bitter it gets under President Clinton, she's not going to start a 3rd, 4th and 5th war.

But the Republicans push and push and push. And the better and brighter are leaving. I see it every day. How much WORSE could it get in the USA?

You're also a fucking New Yorker and a Jew. Show some pride. Show what you're made of, man. If you don't want to be down for your party, at least represent for your city and your tribe. Don't be afraid of partisan rancor. If it gets REALLY bad, you split. Also, if there's partisan rancor, how bad could it be for a person living in NYC? Last I checked there weren't too many Republicans on the Isle of the Manhattoes, nor in the Bronnicks, nor in Kings nor Queens. Only Shai'tan and they don't count.

s. douglas said...

I agree K-man. Do you hear one Wingnut candidate talking about "bi-partisanship," "mending wounds," "making nice," etc?

Fuck no.

They don't care, and they don't care, oh, and they don't fucking care.

The Vichy analogy is perfect.

You cannot have peace with someone who lives for war.

KELSO'S NUTS said...

Good point, FAIRLANE. You never do hear any Republicans talking about "bi-partisanship," because they know the last guy who did that, JIM LEACH (R-IN) a veteran House leader, got his ass handed to him in the election by a Democratic upstart. Not in Massachusetts, in INDIANA!

In a lot of ways the LBJ analogy with her is good. LBJ was not "left-wing" by ideology as Clinton isn't but he was very much a "Democrat" and as such he was open to seeing that for the party to be different from the Republicans he had to be willing to accept societal changes with regard to civil rights. On Vietnam, he was stubborn. I think his selection of Clark Clifford for Secy of Def in 2nd admin was kind of like Bush's selection of Robert Gates. A half-assed effort to walk a fine-line, something which requires a full-ass. Of course, but THAT analogy stops there. LBJ was great but complicated. Bush is horrible and simple.