The Embarrassing Democrats

Ouch!

0 comment on The Embarrassing Democrats

  1. John Cunningham
    March 14, 2008 at 6:51 am

    They’re called the blue dog Democrats. I feel they will regain control from the kennedys, bela pelosi, and company types. The defeatocrats running the party showed us what they were all about in ’75 and reasonable people will finally evict them from the party because they’ve grown weary of their desperation to keeping the old soviets alive.

    Reply
  2. bleh
    March 14, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Translation:

    Jethus chrith, we can’t they just pick my candidate already. Gosh.

    Seriously, the reason they put super delegates in place is to keep people like Obama out. Nobody knows anything about him, the press hasn’t done their job and he makes people feel good. Once the emotion drains out of the campaign the democrats will end up with a one term senator from chicago. Then the corruption shows up, a crazy mentor who thinks the US government is giving everyone AIDS etc.. and everybody asks “how did we get stuck with this guy”.

    Reply
  3. John Cunningham
    March 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Bleh, I’m not sure what the “translation” is in reference to. It may not even have been directed at my comment. I’m a Republican, I was just giving the democrats the benefit of the doubt by mentioning that new democrats that call themselves the Blue Dog Democrats showing promise on rescuing the democrat party. Those I’ve heard talk don’t seem to be of the rabid liberal persuasion.

    Reply
  4. Fiona
    March 15, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    I am enjoying the Democratic race – soap operas, homework, internet studies are all taking very distant second place.

    What intrigues me is the number of Americans – most of whom know NOTHING about anything but where is the nearest Starbucks – complaining that Barack Obama knows nothing, that he is inexperienced, blah, blah…

    The other thing I am watching is the old white establishment trying to make it somehow UN-American to denounce the cruelties of the American State – 5 years after invading Iraq, the Pentagon announces that there is NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with Al- Quaeda. But they hanged him already, so every little thing is gonna be alright…right America?

    YOU LIED to the WORLD, and you sent your children to DIE in a foreign land for a LIE…and you have the NERVE to denounce Rev Jeremiah for saying GOd DAMN AMERICA!??

    WHERE do you all get off with your HYPOCRISY!!

    I am certainly enjoying this race…just to see the men and women who lynched my African brothers, raped my African sisters, destroyed entire African families, prevented them for sitting in buses, eating in restaurants..all of this until VERY RECENTLY…IN MY LIFETIME these HORRORS against African IMPORTS were committed – and you want them to be so glad that they live in the GRAND OLD USA that they should just meekly lie down and SUCK IT UP!

    AND NOT VOTE FOR THEIR OWN MAN? While WHITE people not only vote for WHITES, but clearly expect the relics of slavery to do so as well….HAHAHAHAHA. GOD BLESS AMERICA, you need it more than any other country on earth….

    Reply
  5. Sophia
    March 16, 2008 at 3:57 am

    Ah – Fiona – none of us were alive when slavery was in place – but many of us WERE alive when the Civil Rights movement took flight and set America on an upward journey. People gave their lives in this cause. So many worked and are still working to try and build bridges, create opportunities and break down barriers – remember this as well as the bitterness.

    We haven’t created a perfect, colorblind, classless democracy – yet. But mocking the efforts to build such a world is pointless, sad, and in fact it undercuts Senator Obama’s manifest idealism – or the Clintons’, for that matter – and what about John Edwards? Do you see him as a white master racist?

    What about the fact that African-Americans have ascended to the position of Secretary of State and sit on the Supreme Court? Is this meaningless? Haven’t we gotten to the point where we can look at a person and ask about his ideas, rather than merely voting for him – or against him or her – because of his or her color? And if a person’s ideas are upsetting, can it be assumed that this is because they are upsetting per se rather than because he happens to be black, brown, white or whatever? And vice versa?

    In fact most Americans came to America poor, often fleeing injustice, hunger and persecution elsewhere – and still do!

    We – the collective American “WE” – can hardly be held responsible for the misdeeds of “whitey”. Isn’t that the very definition of “collective punishment”? My word – it’s racism isn’t it? When will we ever get to the point where we look at each other and just see people? Along with that is the awareness that every person on this planet has fear, sorrow, and misfortune in his or her life and somewhere along the line, we’ve all suffered and we’ve all been victims – personally or as a group. It’s manifestly true that some groups struggle more than others – some have been victims of quite successful attempts to exterminate them – others of racially based discrimination – that is a fact. But if there’s a country anywhere in the world where people can overcome this, it’s the US. And neither really brutal prejudice, nor racism, nor an ugly past, gets us individually off the hook: we ALL must struggle to be better people, to accomplish something and contribute something to the world. Isn’t that true?

    What saddens me about your note, most of all, is the obvious fact that we’re not past racism at all. Don’t you see Clinton, first of all, as “white”, not as a highly accomplished woman who’s struggled past barriers younger women can’t even imagine? Women couldn’t even vote in the US until quite recently; even now women’s work earns substantially lower than men’s – gender inequality, worldwide, is a dreadful fact of life and afflicts billions of people. But in the US we have a woman running for President – alongside a man who is literally African-American – son of a Kenyan father and a white woman from Kansas – USA.

    And that is something to celebrate.

    What WILL set us back, though, is anger, rage, bitterness and hate. We’ve got to get beyond that somehow.

    Reply
  6. brooklynjon
    March 16, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    Fiona,

    I do not know precisely why the decision to invade Iraq was made. I suppose there were several, and for all I know, the reasons may have been hypocritical or disingenuous.

    However, I supported the invasion of Iraq back in 2002 (and, in fact, when regime change became official US government policy back in those halcyon days of 1998, when war was okay with the left wing because there was a Democrat in the White House). And I still think it was the right thing to do. And I know why I supported it, and continue to support it. If you’ll indulge me, it has nothing to do with oil, or Al Qaeda (although it clearly does now), or Halliburton, or WMD.

    My family was decimated in the Holocaust. In the Holocaust, a tyrant decided t use to power of the state to suppress, torture, and destroy one ethnic group (actually, several) for the sake of another. It was clear what was going on for quite some time, but the left wing pacifist movement was quite strong, and kept the USA out of the war for several years. By the time we ultimately got involved, millions of civilians were killed (on purpose). My own decimated family perished because of our non-involvement.

    In Iraq, I saw history repeating itself. One ethnic group dominated, and the other ethnicities and religions were severely repressed. My support of the invasion was a principled one, for freedom and against tyranny. If we ended up finding WMD (which we know he had at one time), then so be it. If we ended up fighting Al Qaeda, then fine. However, the proposition (which I heard so often, and still hear) that Arabs somehow cant handle freedom and democracy is incredibly racist to my ears. And so I felt we were on a moral mission, and looking at what the “insurgency” and “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” (as the NY Times insists on calling it) are doing to the civilians of Iraq, it is clear that we still are.

    Well that’s about it. Oh, and I’m sorry whitey treated your ancestors badly. Don’t blame me, my ancestors were busy being gassed while yours were being mistreated.

    Reply
  7. John Cunningham
    March 17, 2008 at 4:25 am

    Fiona, and when we’ve stabilized Iraq we’re going after immadinnerjacket and the mollusks in Iran. Got a problem with that, beyatch?

    Reply
  8. Tantor
    March 23, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    I used to think that we Republicans would win by three points come the election. Now, I think there’s an outside chance of a blowout victory. Right now, we don’t even have to make the case against how bad the Democrats would be. They’re doing it themselves. You don’t need to fight an opponent bent on suicide. You just stand back and let them be.

    And it’s gonna get worse. Already, the radicals on the Left are promising to make the Democrat National Convention a repeat of Chicago in 1968, where violent protestors baited the cops with bad result. If so, voters will come away with the impression that the liberals can not govern themselves, let alone the country.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>