dagblog - Comments for "President Obama Richly Deserves To Be Dumped"

In this op-ed by Charles

Elusive Trope — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:47:45 +0000

In reply to They were describing Obama in

In this op-ed by Charles Blow, (which is worth a read), he links to Pew Research poll that found among other things that by the summer of 2010, only 62% of Democrats knew Joe Biden was our VP. So what it means to say someone is widely known is something that might need to be more clearly define when we're talking politics.

They were describing Obama in

kgb999 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:27:38 +0000

In reply to Just for the sake of accuracy

They were describing Obama in the same terms through the 2008 presidential campaign and Obama did a convention speech in 2004 ... three years fresher than McCarthy. Maybe it isn't "accurate" but it is certainly not uncommon practice in the art to discount a convention speech as determinate of how widely-known a politician it.

I think you maybe think the rest of the nation pays more attention to the speakers at partisan events than they actually do. Schweitzer ... also gave a well-discussed convention speech, yet currently he can only be described as little-known as far as national politics goes. (this is also true of most congresspeople and many of those in the senate, BTW).

Just for the sake of accuracy

Flavius — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:40:32 +0000

In reply to President Obama Richly Deserves To Be Dumped

Just for the sake of accuracy McCarthur is wrong as describing Gene McCarthy as little known in 1967. His 1960 convention speech for Stevenson made him(McCarthy) the talk of that convention. No one confused Gene McCarthy with Joe.

Perhaps McCathur's better informed about current politics

Here is some analysis of more

Anonymous LULU — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:32:23 +0000

In reply to All I got is:

Here is some analysis of more destruction of our 'social network' that I thought I had good reason to believe Obama would resist rather than reinforce when I voted for him. Does he have any personal responsibility for the nature of this bill of for signing it and do you think it is a good or necessary thing ?

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

YUP! HAHAHAHAHAH

Richard Day — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:27:07 +0000

In reply to Obama's not a bulwark against

YUP! HAHAHAHAHAH

Obama's not a bulwark against

kgb999 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:25:25 +0000

In reply to Well good luck with that

Obama's not a bulwark against anything. The barbarians have overrun the gate already. There's not much left to be scared of.

Hillary, Hillary, where on

Richard Day — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:20:34 +0000

In reply to You know what? I hate Hilary

Hillary, Hillary, where on earth did you go?

The work should be going into

kgb999 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:03:07 +0000

In reply to I think what needs to be

The work should be going into getting some actual liberal candidate to oppose Baucus in 2014. Of course that would mean one has to face the difficulty in getting real liberals elected in places like Montana. It's not impossible, but it's not a cake walk.

Well, hellloooo Another Trope! Don't have the time to go back and find comment-proof, but this one I've been highlighting off and on for a bit. Success here could be closer to realization than you may realize. One Brian Schweitzer is literally the most popular politician in Montana. He is term limited out as Gov. in 2012. Has said he won't be running for any other office until after his term is complete.

I love this guy. He vetoed a *raft* of GOP bills a while back, literally laughed at them and told 'em to come back when they were ready to get serious. Tried some really innovative approaches to helping the poor get access to health care also.

He is perfectly poised to spend two years preparing a solid challenge between leaving office and the 2014 race. Now, if we can just figure out Tester ... although, I think he'd be better without Baucus in the picture.

Just saying. I've got a place to crash in Darby ... already planning on pitching in if he runs. He's a good guy.

Well good luck with that

Richard Day — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:59:15 +0000

In reply to Thanks, Dick, for

Well good luck with that attitude.

It will matter not anyway.

The American People will decide.

And as usual, they will pick on the basis of advertising.

I give up.

I don't think you get my message.

It is over.

If Wall Street is even given a chance; well good luck America.

I had nothing to do with it!

the end

Thanks, Dick, for

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:45:52 +0000

In reply to All I got is:

Thanks, Dick, for condescending to drop into my alternate universe and offer me enlightenment. I'll take it wherever I can get it.

I can go on and on.

I know.

If you fail to see the ugly and destructive elements that will destroy our social network or what is left of it; it is on you, not me.

I believe that being satisfied with putting all the blame on the Republicans out of a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Obama will not be sufficient to slow the destructive elements that are destroying what is left of our "social network", as you put it. I believe that demonizing the Republicans where they deserve it but apologizing for, or if a vestige of conscience prohibits that, just ignoring the same actions by the Democrats, is a way of thinking that belongs in bizzaro universe and I will be happy to be in another one if that is actually the case.

Bullshite? I am pretty sure that the word you were looking for was bullSHIT. In this case, it is on you as much as on anybody.