Comments on: Waking to the dark

By: Shiloh

Shiloh — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:35:26 +0000

“You can fool me all of the time” – Obama/Biden 08

By: EdGi

EdGi — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:07:31 +0000

PACat, add another; I never saw anything but a Chicago machine and flim-flam corruption guy. I was amazed that so many made him what they wanted to see assuming their interpretation of his truly artfull code words were really him, and that he was lying only to everybdy else. I am also from PA, Philly, and we know total BS when it flows like it does from ObiWon.

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:08:13 +0000

pendejo,
Edwards struck me as the sleazyest of the sleaze from the git go. Hearing about his courtroom theatrics confirmed his status as beneath sleazy, in my mind.

By: oMan

oMan — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:40:38 +0000

Like many others commenting above, I never felt the O’s love. He radiates pathological narcissism. A cursory review of his (ignored, suppressed, spun) record left me wondering how anyone could get excited about such a lightweight. His “soaring” vision and rhetoric amount to sophomoric straw-man triangulation and massive cribbing from a debater’s thesaurus. His real modus operandi –lies, theft and coercion– was never in doubt.

What mystified me was how many very smart experienced people were taken in by him. And, apparently, still are. Or are too embarrassed or invested to admit what a mistake they’ve made.

Only about 190 weeks to go?

By: pendejo grande

pendejo grande — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:20:29 +0000

Concerning Obama’s snake oil charm: Probably my best friend in the whole world admitted to me recently that he was really thrown off his horse when the news came out that John Edwards had fathered a child out of wedlock while his wife was slowly dying. He said that he had never ever felt like a presidential candidate was “the real deal” any more than he did with John Edwards. I had to bite the lining off of my tongue in order not to lose his friendship. This a 48 year old man with a masters degree and the CEO of a small business. And he got snookered by John Edwards? Evidently intelligent and educated does not mean we have a working BS detector. 52% of the population can’t be wrong, can they? Yeah, I think they were, and are, and probably will be.

By: aconservativeteacher

aconservativeteacher — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:18 +0000

Didn’t Gibbs the other day say that people should be ‘very careful’ about commening about Sotomayor on the news? He issued some sort of thinly-veiled threat that if anyone critized this pick, there would be consquneces. This Obama administration is straight out of Chicago- gangster and mobster at its core.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:13:13 +0000

OK, I give up. Who is the maiden? It seems like the Obama propaganda machine that is out seeing the beauty of cable news and realizing the old liberal press isn’t needed so much.

By: bogie wheel

bogie wheel — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:04:15 +0000

SpeakEasy –

Winter Haven kid here. Our little summer home was in Englewood, on Lemon Bay. Property was so undeveloped that we (a) had sulphur water from the tap for years after building, and (b) cleared the land ourselves from the house down to the edge of the bay. That was one brutally hot, sticky, skeeter-filled, sucky-mud summer. I was 7 and spent it chopping roots and hauling whatchamacallit plants taller than I was. Course there were the fun parts: going to the beach every day, feeding the scrub jays by hand and playing hide-n-seek in our little patch of piney woods.

By: tomw

tomw — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:01:03 +0000

Never, not once, did I ever perceive anything but a charlatan snake-oil salesman, hawking stuff that will cure WHATEVER ails you. From gout to appendicitis to congenital dysplasia – this is the CURE.
His followers heard what they wanted to hear.

I heard a demagogic preacher of empty promises and a panderer of contradictions.

Dr I, you are not alone. From the get-go.

tom w
canton ga

By: steveaz

steveaz — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:42:25 +0000

In order for Obama’s “Sotomayor-pick” to work, her confirmation hearings need to focus on her ethnic and gender “identity.” Axelrod is hoping that all her positives can be linked to these contrived “groupings,” and that any negatives raised by her opponents can be pinned on their supposedly “intolerance” of the nominee’s same traits.

Here’s a way to shortcircuit the ruse. Every Republican vetter on the panel should come wearing cardboard 3-D glasses.

In response to the expected chortling this goofy spectacle would spur, the Republican co-Chair can explain in his opening remarks that “we, the responsible party, are wearing our color-gender-blindness glasses for these hearings. We seek to determine whether this nominee is the best qualified person for the job, without being distracted by the nominee’s gender or ethnic background.”

This will put the onus on the Democrats to explain why viewers should put credence behind the Dem’s planned grievance-grouping when the committee’s real role is to vet nominees to the Supreme Court. Progressive prigs like Durban, Kennedy and Feinstein will be forced to either attack the Republicans for being “color-blind” (as MLK admonished us to act in his speeches), or to slavishly pet and promote their nominee’s racialist, special-interest-group appeal.

Both tacts open the Dem’s up to blistering attack from the sensible American middle. Last I checked, the GOP can get the goofy eye-props at any theater with a 3-D venue.

If you’re listening GOP, how about trying a little bit of theatrics in the Sotomayor hearings? Lord knows your opposition pulls this sh_t all the time (recall Clarence Thomas’ pubic hair and a half-empty coke can?!!).

Really, guys. What have you got to lose?