Campaign 2008

[Guest Teal-y Dan]

Why do you want it to be just one thing? It's an hour long. It's on five days a week. I'm glad it's a little schizo.

It's more a matter of accountability. Olbermann wants to present his program as a newscast until he gets called out for something, at which point it becomes a "news analysis" program. O'Reilly did the same trick years ago.

[At Home 0]

The new avatar is great.

[snuffbox 0]

O'Reilly gets the off-camera "laughter" quite a bit as well (this is mathematically based on hearing it numerous times despite watching him no more than 10 minutes per week).

 

I don't know how anybody can watch an hour of Olbermann's program either. The Czech Republic has my respect!

[Guest Teal-y Dan]

If so, then fuck him too. It just smacks of a desperate need to validate themselves. If the ratings for Countdown start to pick up, it's not implausible that they'll eventually do the show in front of a studio audience. Network was a hell of a film.

[snuffbox 0]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/040...n_Kentucky.html

 

This guy knows.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I used to like Olbermann...until he started going on about the show "24" being "a Bush administration a-ok to torture", or some kind of bullshit. At this point though, I can't stand him. He's become something of an obnoxious caricature, his "Special Comments" reek of self importance, his attempts at comedy are cringe worthy, and his feud with O'Reilly is like watching two idiots comparing the size of their cocks. I still like him more than O'Reilly, but Jesus Christ has he become a self-important douche.

[SuperJerk 0]

Olbermann just wants to be a liberal counter-point to Fox News, but minus the on-air drama. It's not a fair and balanced show, as it reflects his opinions. The other main difference between him and O'Reilly is that he doesn't invite people on his show just to ambush them, talk over them, or have 2-on-one shout-fests between liberals and conservatives.

[Firestarter 0]

O'Reilly gets the off-camera "laughter" quite a bit as well (this is mathematically based on hearing it numerous times despite watching him no more than 10 minutes per week).

Really? I'll readily admit that I never watch his show anymore, so maybe it's changed. A few years ago, though, when he was going through the letters and things and his "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day," there wasn't any off-camera tittering.

[Firestarter 0]

Olbermann just wants to be a liberal counter-point to Fox News, but minus the on-air drama. It's not a fair and balanced show, as it reflects his opinions. The other main difference between him and O'Reilly is that he doesn't invite people on his show just to ambush them, talk over them, or have 2-on-one shout-fests between liberals and conservatives.

CUT HIS MIC! CUT HIS MIC!

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

The other main difference between him and O'Reilly is that he doesn't invite people on his show just to ambush them, talk over them, or have 2-on-one shout-fests between liberals and conservatives.

 

The problem is he goes in the complete opposite direction and just gets super-boring Washington Press Establishment types like Dana Milbank who don't have a single interesting thing to say. Now, I'm no believer in the old "two sides to every story" canard that passes for "balance" on most cable news shows, but I do think that if you're going to claim to be running some kind of high-minded, Murrow-esque enterprise like Olbermann does then you should at least allow for the free exchange of ideas.

[Firestarter 0]

Actually Dana Milbank has proven to be a fairly insightful reporter on Beltway antics. I remember having been impressed by more than one of his stories.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I've never read him in print so I can't comment on that, but whenever he's on Olbermann he comes across as totally vapid and self-satisfied.

[Firestarter 0]

I think that's actually a requirement for a job at the Washington Post.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Actually I'm pretty sure it's a requirement for a job at any established media institution. Actual insight is an increasingly scarce commodity.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Hillary's latest ad, focusing on Obama's comments

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXucMY7Dvk

 

 

She is now officially Nixon 2008. That ad is....she really does think voters are idiots, doesn't she?

[Firestarter 0]

Actually I'm pretty sure it's a requirement for a job at any established media institution. Actual insight is an increasingly scarce commodity.

Agreed. Barone, though he's pretty firmly on the right, is pretty much the most objective and most insightful these days. On the left, I like Blumenthal and Mellman, personally.

[snuffbox 0]

O'Reilly gets the off-camera "laughter" quite a bit as well (this is mathematically based on hearing it numerous times despite watching him no more than 10 minutes per week).

Really? I'll readily admit that I never watch his show anymore, so maybe it's changed. A few years ago, though, when he was going through the letters and things and his "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day," there wasn't any off-camera tittering.

 

I'm pretty sure I've heard it during the body language bits or something. I could be wrong, though. it's not something I really care much about.

[Firestarter 0]

Hillary's latest ad, focusing on Obama's comments

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXucMY7Dvk

 

 

She is now officially Nixon 2008. That ad is....she really does think voters are idiots, doesn't she?

It's a pretty weak fuckin' ad, but B.O. Hussein is the one who really thinks that voters are idiots. At least Hillary's willing to pander. He still doesn't see anything wrong with what he said.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Hillary's latest ad, focusing on Obama's comments

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXucMY7Dvk

 

 

She is now officially Nixon 2008. That ad is....she really does think voters are idiots, doesn't she?

It's a pretty weak fuckin' ad, but B.O. Hussein is the one who really thinks that voters are idiots. At least Hillary's willing to pander. He still doesn't see anything wrong with what he said.

 

I take his lack of pandering as proof that he is treating the voters like adults.

 

What would you rather have? Pleasant lies by the republicans or the unpleasant truth by a guy that does want to help poor people?

 

Voters need to see that the republicans have been using issues like gay marraige and abortion to distract the working class from the real issue i.e the economy and where all the jobs are going.

[Firestarter 0]

I take his lack of pandering as proof that he is treating the voters like adults.

I won't.

 

What would you rather have? Pleasant lies by the republicans or the unpleasant truth by a guy that does want to help poor people?

Neither.

 

Why Orwell Matters [Victor Davis Hanson]

 

Here is what Sen. Obama said:

 

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

 

Here is what Sen. Obama now says he said:

 

"So I said, 'Well, you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on,' " he continued. "So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about, you know, how things are changing. That's a natural response."

 

1. Note how version #1's "cling" becomes version #2's "vote about" and "take comfort from"—as the condescending dismissal becomes empathetic understanding.

 

2. Note how version #1's "religion" and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" becomes version #2's "faith" and "their family and community" —as fundamentalist xenophobes now become beleaguered folks who band together against the unfairness.

 

3 Note how version #1's "anti-immigrant" becomes version #2's "mad about illegal immigrants" —as the nativist who opposes all immigrants, legal and illegal, now becomes understandably angry only about those coming here illegally.

 

4. Note how version #1's "as a way to explain their frustrations" becomes version #2's "they get frustrated about" as the misguided scape-goaters become those who react understandably to adversity.

 

5. Note no explanation in version #2 for version #1's "anti-trade sentiment"—and no wonder since Obama himself is embarrassed that so far he's voiced far more "anti-trade sentiment" than those he caricatured.

 

6. Note how version #1's "And it's not surprising then they get bitter" becomes version #2's "your'e" and "you" and "Thats a natural response", as the condescending use of the embittered and distant "they" now morphs into a kindred "you" and the quip "not surprising" becomes the sympathetic "natural."

 

7. Note how version #1's idiotic logic that Middle-America has only become religious or pro-gun in the last 25 years as a result of job loss is simply omitted.

 

8. Note how there is sudddenly no "context" for the landscape of version #1: an elite Bay-area audience that is told stories about those Pennsylvanian gun-toting zealots.

 

With Obama, the clarifications (cf. the Wright and Michelle contextualizations) are always more interestig than the original lapse.

 

04/13 08:27 AM

-link

 

Voters need to see that the republicans have been using issues like gay marraige and abortion to distract the working class from the real issue i.e the economy and where all the jobs are going.

Issues like gay marriage and abortion are quite important to many Americans. You may not like it, but it's a fact.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Issues like gay marriage and abortion are quite important to many Americans. You may not like it, but it's a fact.

More important than the economy? 'Hey, I voted for the guy that ensured gay men could never marry! This comforts me as I'm living on the streets!'

 

 

Neither.

 

So, the republicans keep their promises then? Ask Ohio and Pennsyvania how that worked out.

 

 

 

This is nothing new. This 'he's an elitist' has been used against various democrat candidates in the past to convince people to go for Bush (you know, the guy with the impoverished upbringing who never had a thing handed to him), and the poor got poorer, and nothing changed.

 

Obama's 'I could have worded it better' explanation is probably genuine, since, as mentioned, he's spent the most of his adult life trying to aid the poor, rather than fattening his back account. Why did he do that when, out of Harvard law school, he could have easily taken a high paying corporate job? Especially since mccain's track record on the subject is pretty sketchy (most notably, he supports the rich person tax cuts and opposes paying for children's health care)

[Firestarter 0]

More important than the economy? 'Hey, I voted for the guy that ensured gay men could never marry! This comforts me as I'm living on the streets!'

Some people think that moral values are more important than their bank accounts. Laugh it up. You'll pay at the polls.

 

This is nothing new. This 'he's an elitist' has been used against various democrat candidates in the past to convince people to go for Bush (you know, the guy with the impoverished upbringing who never had a thing handed to him), and the poor got poorer, and nothing changed.

Indeed, this is nothing new. Get a new schtick, will you?

 

I'll take Obama's 'I could have worded it better' explanation, since, as mentioned, he's spent the most of his adult life trying to aid the poor, rather than fattening his back account. Why did he do that when, out of Harvard law school, he could have easily taken a high paying corporate job?

AFAIK he never wrote one article for the Law Review while he was editor there. He went into "community organization" in order to build up "black cred," same goes for his affiliation with Wright's racist church (he lost an election before that to someone who seemed "more black") and promptly began associating with slimeballs like Rezko, not to mention terrorists like Ayers, in order to fatten his bank account and increase his liberal bona fides.

 

Especially since mccain's track record on the subject is pretty sketchy

I'm not going to support McCain, you idiot. I hate the motherfucker. As I've stated several times.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Actually I'm pretty sure it's a requirement for a job at any established media institution. Actual insight is an increasingly scarce commodity.

Agreed. Barone, though he's pretty firmly on the right, is pretty much the most objective and most insightful these days. On the left, I like Blumenthal and Mellman, personally.

 

Do high-brow organs like The New York Review of Books count as established media institutions? That's pretty much the only even vaguely mainstream publication I can think of that's consistently interesting/insightful. The New Yorker has become terribly predictable, The Atlantic currently boasts Andrew Sullivan on its masthead (never a good look), and Harper's has been almost completely keelhauled by The Nation-esque knee-jerk leftism. On the right it seems like almost everything has simply devolved into vapid partisan hackery. The state of public discourse in this country is pretty depressing.

[Firestarter 0]

The New Yorker is okay IMO from time to time. I prefer City Journal though, Heather McDonald and Silverstein. The Atlantic used to have Michael Kelly, who was brilliant until the day he died, but still features the occasional article by PJ O'Rourke, whom I love, and has a couple of other halfway decent columnists. On the right I'd suggest Noemie Emery at the Weekly Standard, but stay far away from Mort Kondracke (who's just a hack) and Fred Barnes (who's also a hack, though to a lesser extent). On Fox, the one guy on the left who occasionally manages to make a bit of sense is Juan Williams. At NRO, try Jonah Goldberg (on occasion) and Byron York, their best writer. Avoid Derbyshire and Nordlinger. They're just annoying.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Some people think that moral values are more important than their bank accounts. Laugh it up. You'll pay at the polls.

 

 

People still look back fondly at the Clinton years, despite them being filled with scandals, sex, immorality...all perpetuated by a pro choice, pro gay candidate, and why? Because people made money.

 

 

You think anyone will remember the Bush years with such fondess? Yeah, everyone's more moral, but they're also miserable.

 

. Get a new schtick, will you?

 

Can you offer me proof it's not true?

 

 

 

 

AFAIK he never wrote one article for the Law Review while he was editor there. He went into "community organization" in order to build up "black cred,"

 

How do you know what was going through his mind and what his motivations were?

 

 

 

same goes for his affiliation with Wright's racist church

 

For the record, a member of wright's church, a white man, came foward with a story recently about how wright encouraged his black fiance to go through with the wedding after she had second thoughts about being in a mixed race marraige. Wright told her if she loved him she shouldn't let race get in the way. So, this racist church is one that encourages a black woman to go through with a mixed race marraige to a white man.

 

promptly began associating with slimeballs like Rezko,

 

Thankfully, Bush or the rest of his cronies don't associate with such seedy types.

 

 

I'm not going to support McCain, you idiot. I hate the motherfucker. As I've stated several times.

 

Sorry, I rarely pay attention to your posts.

[At Home 0]

Can you offer me proof it's not true?

 

She has a pretty hard time with this.

[Firestarter 0]

People still look back fondly at the Clinton years, despite them being filled with scandals, sex, immorality...all perpetuated by a pro choice, pro gay candidate, and why? Because people made money.

Welcome to EUmerica.

 

How do you know what was going through his mind and what his motivations were?

'cause B.O. Hussein had just been defeated by another black who had charged him not being authentically black enough. Since, among other reasons, most of his financial support was coming from outside the congressional district, from rich white liberal academics.

 

So, this racist church is one that encourages a black woman to go through with a mixed race marraige a white man.

And also teaches that AIDS was invented by that white man to kill the black woman. Nice.

 

Y'know, you're really not going to get any points by defending Wright.

 

I'm not going to support McCain, you idiot. I hate the motherfucker. As I've stated several times.

 

Sorry, I rarely pay attention to your posts.

Watch me care.

[Brett Favre 0]

Issues like gay marriage and abortion are quite important to many Americans. You may not like it, but it's a fact.

 

LOL.

 

Obama doesn't appeal to the retards of this country. They rather get lied to and focus on homos.

[Firestarter 0]

There's a winning electoral narrative.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Welcome to EUmerica.

 

Yeah, god forbid, people, like, make money and prosper.

 

 

'cause B.O. Hussein had just been defeated by another black who had charged him not being authentically black enough. Since, among other reasons, most of his financial support was coming from outside the congressional district, from rich white liberal academics.

 

He's been with Trinity since 1988. Before he started a senate career.

 

 

 

And also teaches that AIDS was invented by that white man to kill the black woman. Nice.

 

Yeah, and Jerry Fawell also said gays were to blame for 9/11. A preacher said something crazy. Go figure. Go to any mosque, synagogue, church or what have you on any weekend and you'll hear some inane shit about a magical creature that made the world in 6 days and then took a rest and turned a man into a bear to eat children. And sometimes, it's really hateful shit - e.g., is some white guye saying tripe such as "Katrina was God's wrath for homos, secretly fond of each other." Here it was a black man saying "America, you deserved 9/11 becuase of your foreign policy." or 'white people tried to kill blacks with aids'

 

Y'know, you're really not going to get any points by defending Wright.

 

Points? Are you twelve?

 

Watch me care.

 

Yes, you are twelve.