Sunday, January 27, 2008

A Good Day for Barack Obama

Many US Democrats are torn between supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They - women in particular - feel a tribal loyalty towards Hillary, but are drawn by the idealism displayed by Obama. Today's article in the New York Times by Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK, may well have quite an influence on these waverer. She comes out for Obama, as the true inheritor of JFK style idealism. It's a powerful endorsement.

It's been a good 24 hours for the Illinois senator. While his victory in South Carolina was expected, the 55-27 margin over Hillary was not. Going into Super Tuesday he has grabbed 'the big mo' back from Hillary Clinton in no uncertain terms.

45 comments:

Gracchi said...

He has indeed grabbed it back. Hillary has gone very negative in the last couple of weeks- but it'll be interesting to see what happens in other states on February 5th- so far everything in this campaign has come as a surprise.

neil craig said...

I'm not sure what Obama actually stands for apart from charm & being able to make very good speechs. Still this puts him ahead of Hilary on 3 points.

canvas said...

Congratulations to Barack Obama!

The future looks brighter.

Barack Obama said last night:
"The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future."

And he is right.

Matthew said...

It really is time for Bill to take a breather. He's doing active harm both to Hillary's campaign and to his own reputation. The Jesse Jackson remark was a cheap, cheap shot, and unworthy of a former president:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/26/for_bill_clinton_echoes_of_jac.html

verity said...

Well, it was certainly a good day for Obama, but I disagree with the rest of your analysis.

"Women in particular" don't have a particular "tribal loyalty" to Hillary. She scared everyone to death with the ersatz national health programme she slaved away on for the first couple of years Bill was Prez. I've never seen anything binned so quickly.

She was embroiled in some incredibly murky dealings - that were never cleared up - in cattle futures, on which she made a gang of money - as if by magic, really. Then there were the mystery property deals. Then there was Vince Foster and a mysterious death. People who make themselves enemies of the Clintons do not fare well in life.

I think people who vote for Clinton do so because they see her as experienced in Washington and because, to give her her due, she has proved herself a competent, hardworking senator. I don't think loyalty plays a role at all.

Obama's a gift to the Reps. People will vote for him along ethnic lines because - whatever his future may be - at the moment he has nothing to offer in the way of experience or knowledge of inside Washington. He also has an appalling attendance record during his fragile two years as a senator.

Caroline Kennedy's piece will mean exactly diddly to the voters. She's not a political figure and never has been. She'll be 50 this year and has not been a public figure since her father was assassinated lo these decades ago. Many younger voters won't know who she is. Those who do know who she is are aware that she comes from a deeply corrupt family, whose drinker-in-chief, Teddy, still staggers on.

In fact, bringing in the Kennedy name was probably a big mistake. Older voters will remember Mary Jo Kopechne and remember than more people have died in Teddy's car than died at Three Mile Island.

So, Iain, I disagree with every word.

canvas said...

Verity's comments have reinforced my view that Barack Obama must become the next president of the USA. LoL

Obama threatens the status quo - and that is exactly what is needed. The public love Obama. It's hard not to. The man is a genius.

:)

PS> According to a recent LA Times poll: 3 out of 5 Democrats want Obama and Clinton together on the ticket... President and VP.

verity said...

If Hillary gets the nomination, the Dems are in with a chance, Canvas. If - by some cosmic tilt, Obama gets it, the Reps - with either McCain or Guiliani - will hang onto the White House for at least four more years. Tee hee.

Obama's not only a chancer. He is the Manchurian Candidate.

canvas said...

"The LA Times survey finds that 62 percent of Democrats would like Clinton to pick Obama as her running mate if she is the nominee; 60 percent say they would want Obama to pick Clinton.

The poll shows that Clinton and Obama would both beat Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee by margins of 10 points or more in theoretical general-election matchups. Obama and McCain almost split the vote in the poll, while Clinton had a 4-point edge over McCain, within the margin of error for the question."

verity said...

My rule of thumb is, ask yourself, who would Matt Frei support in his broadcasts, and who would he mention with his sulky, smug little face screwed up in tragic disapproval?

My guess: he adores Obama and would screw up his silly little face when uttering the words "McCain" or "Guiliani".

So if you don't want to be allied with a stupid little idiot who comically misreported the entire Katrina saga, day after day, it's got to be a Rep.

You know it makes sense.

Matthew said...

Could someone remind me of the name of that rule about the first person to shout 'Nazi'?

Having read Verity's post, it seems to me there should be something similar regarding Chappaquiddick...

David Boothroyd said...

The theoretical matchup opinion polls don't show any great difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in how they do against named Republican candidates. However I suspect that many Republican voters would be far more likely to go to vote against Hillary Clinton than would vote against Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

Iain for the most part is right. Interestingly the exit polls showed no gender split (54-54) in Obama's support. So women weren't voting with gender. Of course, the African-American vote did fall heavily in Obama's favour >80% which is good and a bad thing. Presumably if Obama wins the nomination then white American Democrats will vote for him and visa versa with the black community if Clinton is nominated - so long as she and Bill hasn't burned too many bridges with the community. The exits also showed that people think America is more ready for a black president than a woman president. And I do think that the Kennedy name still holds strong positive qualities amongst Democrats and will help Obama in New England.

There is a fairly detailed manifesto on his campaign website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

The whole experience thing usually isn't an issue. Americans have always known that whoever gets to the White House is surrounded by loads of experienced staffers, policy wonks and the military take care of business. It has always been about something much more personal to the voter with their selection of presidents (many less qualified than this year field of candidates). It's possible that W. Bush has broken that tradition. In any case when has it ever been considered that being First Lady for 20 years in Arkansas and Washington DC counted as governmental experience. After that Clinton and Obama's CV stack up fairly evenly. Both lawyers, one in business the other in civil rights. Obama, 7 years in Illinois legislature, lecturer of constitutional law, president of Harvard Law review, 3 years in US Senate. Clinton, 7 years US Senate, congressional legal counsel. She certainly has more years under her belt in the practice of law.

Anonymous said...

Disagree with Verity. If Hillary wins the nomination the Republicans will produce a negative ad blitz like has never been seen before. However much negative campaigning is hated the facts show that it works especially in the hand of Rove. There is no way she can pick up the required swing voters because most of them already have a strong opinion of her, mostly negative when it comes to values and character. It is not a case of "one more heave" and the Dems are back in the White House. They need to break the demographic voting record which is something the poll show she can't do.

Geezer said...

Obama seems like a Black American version of Tony Bliar! All charisma and speeches, long on hot-air but lacking any real substance. He appeals to the Liberal media establishment and wider showbiz elite, they'll inflate him into something he is not.
He would be a TV President the way that Blair was a TV Primeminister, delivering a never ending stream of pointless soundbites to keep his media friends happy and fool the more gullible parts of the electorate. Obama smells like a cynical media creation in the same way that NuLab have turned out to be.
I don't like the Clintons, but Hilary might have a bit more substance behind her sour-puss exteria.

Marquee Mark said...

Rudi now fourth in Florida polls, behind Huckabee and way behind McCain and Romney, so can't see how he can figure (unless his supporters postally voted about six months ago when he was leading by miles).

Excellent winner's speach by Obama last night - even if his battle cry "Yes we can!" does suggest that America is going to be ruled by Bob the Builder.

verity said...

[3:30} - The Dems are not in a strong position.

There's something sneaky about Obama. And his background is a little too interesting for middle America. I really cannot detect any great enthusiasm for Hillary. True, the Dems will turn out and vote for whoever gets the nomination, but I don't think in sufficient numbers to best a strong Rep.

Some Dem old-timers may remember JFK with fondness - not forgetting that he was followed by LBJ and his car wreck of The Great Society. Best to leave that sleeping dog lie and not invoke JFK's name. Also, no one gives a monkey's what the unknown Caroline Kennedy thinks about anything.

mutleythedog said...

Is that 'Big Mo' from Eastenders? I am sorry I am a bit confused...

verity said...

Geezer - I beat you to calling Obama a Blair clone over a month ago. He is totally Tony Blair. He talks in Blairesque empty soundbites and waffle.

"Time for a change". Change from what? Well, he doesn't actually say. But he likes that word "change" as much as Blair did.

To be fair to him, his academic credentials far outshine Blair's unbroken record of mediocrity, but he attends some church, the chief financial backer of which is Louis Farrakhan - the Black Muslim. This is passing weird.

Rush-is-Right said...

On policy issues you cannot separate Mrs Clinton from Obama. Both are big-government tax and spend liberals. Either would be appalling presidents (as would McCain).

Neither of them would be electable against a strong GOP candidate. But that is the big imponderable. McCain has been running strongly so far but his successes have come in states where they have open primaries. In those states you don't have to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primaries It is thought that much of his support has come from people who will not be voting Republican in November. Among registered Republicans McClain has much less support, quite insufficient to beat a Democrat in the General Election.

In November the Republicans will have to poll to their maximum strength in order to beat either Mrs Clinton or Obama. McCain cannot mobilise that membership. In fact by many GOP members he as detested nearly as much as Mrs Clinton is. Forget Huckabee (nutcase), Thompson has dropped out (shame), the only Republicans left with any chance at all are Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani. But both of these tick some wrong boxes among the Republican base. For Rudi it's his liberal social attitudes on abortion and gay marriage. For Romney it's his Morman background.

The fact that the liberal print media are all backing John McCain tells you everything you might want to know about him. He's their kind of Republican. And when it comes to November they won't be endorsing him then. The MSM will, as always, be in the tank for whomever the Democrats select.

The Primaries are entering the interesting phase now. Up to now they have been meaningless. In New Hampshire you didn't even have to live in NH to vote in the primaries there. So, guess who bussed in voters from neighbouring states? Mrs Clinton, that's who. Legal, one assumes, but no indicator of her real support. Elsewhere wherever McCain has done well it's because he has polled strongly among people that aren't even party members. Absurd.

My analysis; Obama or Clinton are both beatable, but only by Romney or (maybe) Giuliani.

dearieme said...

After all that impeachment investigation, you'd think that the Reps might have a good deal of as-yet-unused dirt on Hillary. I suspect we'll find out.

canvas said...

Obama appeals to Democrats, Republicans and Independents. His message resonates with people from all walks of life.

Obama: ""Out of many we are one; while we breathe, we will hope; and where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words: 'Yes we can'."

He is the most exciting thing to happen in politics for decades.

Obama gives people hope - that's a powerful gift.

Yak40 said...

Caroline Kennedy is just preaching to the converted. The Kennedy name lost its gloss years ago after all, what did JFK actually achieve ? Precious little but the press went wild over him and covered for his indiscretions too.

JFK was also the last time a Senator became President, voters tend to prefer people who have a record of competence in administration whether political (state Governors) or in private industry. Of course we all know that is not considered desirable in the UK as evidenced by the shower in office now !

An article in a Canadian 'paper sums it up pretty well:
Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy
.

verity said...

Rush Is Right - Thanks for an excellent analysis! I think you're right. I do not think McCain is in with a chance.

Republican votes can at least be assured that Guiliani would be gangbusters on terrorism, and that point may be important enough to swamp doubts about his more liberal social agenda. I hope so.

Anonymous said...

I doubt rush-is-right's analysis. The Republicans are wonderful at turning out their support. Even if McCain was the nominee (as you say, is in doubt because of his non-appeal to the base), I think the Republicans would still be able to motivate their base in the general by pointing to Hillary Clinton and the perceived threat she is to their issues. Obama wouldn't evoke the same strong motivations to beat the Democrats. Giuliani looks like toast in Florida so Romney or Huckabee could enjoy strong support from the base and would thrash Clinton. I'm just not sure whether Romney (probably not Huckabee) will get a good share of the swing voters to beat Obama's broader appeal .

I need the rules said...

A little off message
can someone tell me site that has an easy to understand rules of the selection
How many votes per state?
Is this proportional or winner takes all?
Who is ahead in at present?
Like this for both Rep and Dem if poss

verity said...

Canvas quotes Obama: "Out of many we are one; while we breathe, we will hope; and where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words: 'Yes we can'."

Change a couple of words and it could be Tony Blair, with equal sincerity.

One question: Who's telling Obama "we can't"? And "can't" what? What the hell is he talking about?

canvas said...

dear i need the rules,

here is a link for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7118194.stm

Rush-is-Right said...

At 4.20pm I said at the end of an un-typically long post My analysis; Obama or Clinton are both beatable, but only by Romney or (maybe) Giuliani.

There are too many 'or's in that statement. To clarify, Mrs Clinton will be easier to beat than Obama. She carries baggage from the past, she is personally dislikeable, and is hated by half of the country. As somebody (maybe Charles Krauthammer) pointed out earlier, her very candidacy is, effectively, the biggest alimony settlement in history. It's HER TURN, DAMN IT! And that is her sole qualification for high office.

Obama on the other hand, is a blank page. There is something of Blair about him, and I don't mean that as a compliment except in the sense that he can make the right sounds when called upon. He doesn't offend people, he doesn't remind people of their ex-wife, and his speeches can sound inspiring even when underneath there is nothing there. He is the perfect example of a blank board onto which people chalk their own wishes and wants. He is going to disappoint a lot of them but that doesn't matter for now. If he is to be defeated in November it will be by the GOP exposing his essential emptiness and his lack of experience. Oh and he's a lawyer for goodness' sake. To many of them in public life.

Coming to the Republicans it is clear to me that McCain has no chance of beating either Democrat candidate (which is why the liberal MSM are endorsing him). There is an element in the GOP that if called upon to choose between him and either possible Democrat candidate would simply sit on its hands in a spirit of joyous rebellion or maybe even vote Democrat. Think John Major in 1997. It will be that sort of electoral wipe-out. I make this prediction with absolute certainty.... McCain will NOT be the next President of the United States. (I wouldn't rule out a VP candidature on a joint ticket with Mrs Clinton though.)

Me, I like Mitt Romney, and have done from the get-go. The polls suggest that Giuliani is slipping away in Florida despite his enormous spend there. And in any event I doubt his appeal in the South. So, to go out on a limb, my feeling is that Romney can certainly beat Clinton and maybe he can beat Obama too. Nobody else has a chance.

canvas said...

verity says:
One question: Who's telling Obama "we can't"? And "can't" what? What the hell is he talking about?

I'll let Barack Obama answer your questions, bleow. If you took the time to read Obama's speeches you discover the answers to your questions. Have you read the brilliant book by Obama, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"?

Barack Obama:
"It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us that we can't do this, that we can't have what we're looking for, that we can't have what we want, that we're peddling false hopes. But here is what I know. I know that when people say we can't overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of that elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day, an envelope that had a money order for $3.01, along with a verse of scripture tucked inside the envelope. So don't tell us change isn't possible. That woman knows change is possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.

When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change. Yes, we can.

Yes, we can change. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future."



http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/barack_obama/2008/01/yes_we_can.html

for the full transcript. above link.

People have lost faith in politics and politicians. Can Obama restore that trust with the public? Yes, he can.

Anonymous said...

Senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Obama tomorrow according to HuffPost/Boston Globe/CNN.

The Clinton camp are already out spinning it and it has been revealed that she has been lobbying Kennedy very hard to endorse her.

verity said...

Canvas writes: "If you took the time to read Obama's speeches you discover the answers to your questions."

Dear God! Read the speeches of a mediocre wannabee politician? The world's full of them. I wouldn't even have read your straight answer had it been more than two sentences long.

Canvas quotes Obama: "It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."

I ask again. What the hell is he talking about? What "divisions and distractions and drama"? That's what life is all about. Divisions, distractions and drama.

"... a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity". This means what, exactly? It is totally Blairesque vacuity.

"Yes. We can seize our future." What does that meeeeeaaaaaan???? The future's going to happen whether you seize it or not.

I wonder if Blair's helping him with his speeches?

Craig Ranapia said...

Obama's a gift to the Reps. People will vote for him along ethnic lines because - whatever his future may be - at the moment he has nothing to offer in the way of experience or knowledge of inside Washington. He also has an appalling attendance record during his fragile two years as a senator.

Oh, Verity... I've busted the utter falsehoods in that statement elsewhere (not least that Obama actually has more experience in elected office than Clinton) elsewhere, but if I couldn't bring you back to the fact-based world then I'm not going to do it now.

Funny though, how if Obama is such a 'gift' to the GOP, you've got to wonder why posts like this are appearing on The Corner (National Review Online's group blog):

Barack Obama's speech tonight was simply exceptional — and a reminder of why he is one of the most remarkable political talents in our lifetime. He was able to speak in ways that seem to rise above conventional politics, even as he was able to masterfully push back against the Clinton attacks of the last several weeks. His capacity to touch and stir authentic emotions is remarkable. And unlike Clinton and especially Edwards, the Obama message is about unity, not divisions; and hopes rather than grievances. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans have a great deal to fear. He has tremendous break-out potential.

His weaknesses remains his record and his views, which are conventionally and utterly liberal — and that matters a great deal.

Politics is, at the end of the day, about ideas and philosophy, not simply rhetoric. But, as all the great presidents have shown, rhetoric matters, too. Beyond that, Hillary Clinton is a conventional liberal, as is Obama; the difference is that Obama is a graceful and dignified person who draws people to him rather than drives them away. He is impossible to dislike. And when you see Obama and Clinton together, or back to back, is there any doubt who is the more impressive person — or the more formidable political figure?


{Source: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDkwZTg3YjUxZGJmZTUzMjE4MGZhMjQ1MDYyNjhhZWM= }

Hardly an uncritical rave - and I'm not holding my breath waiting for the NR Obama endorsement. But I think Pether Wehner nailed why the GOP establishment don't see Obama as a 'gift', but someone to fear.

Fairly or not, I do believe Bill and Hillary would bring out right-winger who don't much like the Republican field, but they hate the Clinton beyond reason. Obama? Well, if the Democrats picked a grown-up the GOP might just have to respond in kind - and where does that leave folks who've been campaigning on the Rove template for the last two decades?

Craig Ranapia said...

Both are big-government tax and spend liberals

Theo-con darlings Romney and Huckabee aren't? Please... I know its hard to tell which spin cycle you're on with these two at any given moment, but if they're fiscal conservatives Britney Spears is a great singer and role model for mothers the world over.

Yak40 said...

Rush is right, agreed.

Craig Ranapia, you're correct, any Republican drawing breath would crawl over miles of broken glass to vote for any opponent of Hillary.

Obama, well we'll see. He's certainly charming but has offered no substance tho' that hasn't stopped the press swooning over him.

It's still a long way until the party conventions, it's hardly surprising to see Hillary's people now making noises about her getting the disallowed Michigan delegates. Typical Clinton sleazy trick.

One thing's for sure, it's going to get really filthy if Queen Hillary starts to feel seriously threatened. They have dirt files (sorry, "opposition research") that make J Edgar Hoover's look like "post-it" stickies.

As I've said, the Clintons must never again inhabit the White House.

canvas said...

Verity asks: What "divisions and distractions and drama"?


errmmm, ever heard of the Clintons?

:)

PS> Verity, I'm surprised that you can judge Obama so easily while admitting that you have never read his speeches or his books.

verity said...

Craig Ranapia - "Obama actually has more experience in elected office than Clinton)"

No one said he doesn't. You don't seem to understand. Being a state senator is no preparation for the executive task of being the CEO of the largest economy in the world. Even being a US senator, and being based in DC and understanding how the federal system works isn't really enough. The last one was JFK. And that was many, many moons ago.

What the Americans focus on is governors. People who have been the chief executive of what is,in effect, a country. George Bush had served two terms as Governor of Texas, which goes to prove that the Texas voters were pleased with his performance during his first term as chief executive of their state.

Even 50 years in the Illinois Senate would not count.

Obama's been a national senator for all of two years and, by all accounts, has been disgracefully neglectful of his role while he tried to slide himself into the national consciousness.

Canvas writes: "PS> Verity, I'm surprised that you can judge Obama so easily while admitting that you have never read his speeches or his books."

Piece of cake. All I had to do was look at his face. Same with Tony Blair. The first time I ever saw him on TV, I knew the man and I knew he was a malignant, destructive spirit and would do great harm to my country. Same with Gordon Brown.

Obama is not a nice person. He's a greedy little egoist with Blairesque missionary zeal.

canvas said...

Verity says:
"George Bush had served two terms as Governor of Texas, which goes to prove that the Texas voters were pleased with his performance during his first term as chief executive of their state."


***Which proves that 'experience' matters diddly squat. Texas must be weeping about their great governor - what a disaster he turned out to be.




Verity says:
"Obama is not a nice person. He's a greedy little egoist with Blairesque missionary zeal."



***Verity, Even people with the most vivid imaginations couldn't accept that comment as reasonable! LoL :)

Obama has charisma. He appears to be an extremely nice man. I haven't seen nor heard anything that would make me think Obama is 'greedy' (unlike George Bush).

Let's face it, most politicians are slightly unhinged. It's the nature of their job. However, Obama appears to be one of the most sensible and intelligent politicians to grace the platform in decades.

verity said...

Canvas - George Bush was a very fine and popular governor of Texas. You don't know what you're talking about. Writing lol after your comments, apparently as a form of punctuation, doesn't further the discussion.

Obama has an unsavoury past. He was (is?) a muslim. He attends a Christian church financed mainly by Black Muslim Louis Farrakhan.

I don't doubt the man's intelligence, but I don't trust him and I don't like the Blairesque posturing.

Also, even if he were a more measured person who actually addressed issues instead of speaking in adolescent aspirational generalities, I hate the left and wish them ill.

Craig Ranapia said...

Even 50 years in the Illinois Senate would not count.

Well, it doesn't count to you Verity. Sure seemed to count to the people who put Obama in the Senate with seventy percent of the vote.

State legislative experience mattered very much to figures like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt -- but what did those lightweight flakes know?

The Illinois State Legislature isn't exactly the Dunny-on-the-Wold CWI.

But it seems to me that you've fallen into the same trap as every other HRC supporter who likes to play the 'experience' card, but keeps shifting the goal posts when its not to Hillary's advantage.

Like so:
What the Americans focus on is governors.

Then could you refresh my memory: When exactly did Hillary Rodham Clinton serve as Governor of Arkansas?

Oh, I forgot... when you're HRC, you don't need to win any stinking elections or hold office to gain 'experience'. Osmotic absorption from your husband is more than enough.

And finally, for some light relief:
Piece of cake. All I had to do was look at his face.

Ah, yes... the same technique by which George Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and divined that this corrupt murderous thug was really a stand up guy? Hum... Next time I hold a seance (or need someone to pick my lottery numbers), I'll give you a call. Otherwise, don't hold your breath waiting.

Craig Ranapia said...

Obama has an unsavoury past. He was (is?) a muslim.

Oh come on, Verity, your flailing isn't only getting desperate but a wee bit offensive.

By all credible accounts, Obama's stepfather was a (pretty secular 'Westerised') Muslim. While he attended attended local schools in Jakarta from ages 6 to 10, the allegations that he attended some kind of radical madrassa have been comprehensively debunked.

But, hell, why let facts get in the way of a nasty blood libel?. Hell, I guess I'm not a real Catholic because my father was a Protestant -- but one who agreed that I should be raised Catholic.

You'd think the British of all people would know their own history well enough to avoid stroking religious enmity for political ends.

verity said...

Craig Ranapia - Well, it doesn't count to you Verity. Sure seemed to count to the people who put Obama in the Senate with seventy percent of the vote.

Sweetie, they put him in the Senate. The SENATE. They were voting for a SENATOR. Can you understand the difference? Not president. Senator. To represent them in Washington. Which he has not done.

You've got to get a grip and stop being such a slave to anger.

State legislative experience mattered very much to figures like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt -- but what did those lightweight flakes know? Generations ago. Generations. Many lifetimes, before America and the world got so complicated. In the early days of America, citizens used to stroll up to the White House, lean their elbows on the sills and look through the windows. They don't do that any more, either.

But it seems to me that you've fallen into the same trap as every other HRC supporter who likes to play the 'experience' card, but keeps shifting the goal posts when its not to Hillary's advantage.

Sweetheart: Why would you assume I'm a Clinton fan? Feel a hissy loathing against women, do you? and feel we all cling together? I loathe Hillary as much as I loathe her louche husband.

"Next time I hold a seance (or need someone to pick my lottery numbers), I'll give you a call. Otherwise, don't hold your breath waiting...". Okaaaaaayyyyy. But why would I give my numbers to you rather than keep them for myself? Bit of a puzzle, I must admit. And how would you get my phone number, Ms Hissy?

By all credible accounts, Obama's stepfather was a (pretty secular 'Westerised') Muslim. While he attended attended local schools in Jakarta from ages 6 to 10, the allegations that he attended some kind of radical madrassa have been comprehensively debunked.

Madrassas are radical islamic by definition.

Six to 10 are formative years. He attended a madrassah. Don't tell lies. He attended a madrassah in his formative years.

And there's no such thing as a 'Westernised' muslim. Well, they're extremely rare, and he's not one. He's on a mission, that one. A Manchurian candidate.

But, hell, why let facts get in the way of a nasty blood libel?. Hell, I guess I'm not a real Catholic because my father was a Protestant -- but one who agreed that I should be raised Catholic.

Why would I give a rat's arse about you or your father or your religion? How did you weasel yourself and your boring family into this discussion?

And what's with the "blood libel"? Over-dramatic and over-rouged as always, eh?

Bugger off.

Craig Ranapia said...

Verity:

Careful, darling, your Freudian slip is showing again and once more you do get rather "shrill" and "angry" when called out on your basic errors of fact.

Here's something to think about -- a lie doesn't become any less of a lie with repetition, or because it is laced with ignorant and vulgar abuse. You also appear to know sweet stuff-all about Islam or the school system in Indonesia, so you've got some nerve calling me a liar.

Oh, and another thing you have in common with HRC -- you do love to play the gender card don't you? Sorry to disturb your victim trip, but I have enormous respect for women; I have none at all for people who are either fools or habitual liars regardless of gender. (Also rather insightful that someone who screams 'sexist' with such monotonous regularity whose line in put-downs is a tad queeny.)

Bugger off.

No, I don't think so. Keep telling lies, and I'll keep calling you on them - out host willing. If you don't like that, don't bugger off. Just try making comments that are closer to reality than your racist, ill-informed paranoia.

Craig Ranapia said...

And just as a matter of interest, you do realise 'The Manchurian Candidate' (the novel, and both film versions) is enjoyable but utterly ludicrous pulp fiction? You'd be surprised how many folks who throw around that phrase don't have a clue where it comes from.

verity said...

Craig Ranapia - I was the first I believe, on the internet to compare Obama with The Manchurian Candidate. It certainly spread like wildfire. We are all familiar with the novel and the movie, thanks.

I think I was also first to point out that Obama is a spiritual doppelganger for Tony Blair.

You write: "Keep telling lies, and I'll keep calling you on them."

What "lies", you terribly silly person?

Others accuse me of being too partisan to conservative causes, and independence for Britain, and too right wing in my calls for a return of the death penalty, the stocks and an armed citizenry. I am known to be an admirer of George Bush (I liked his father, too) and dismissive of every lefty crawling the face of our planet, and you see me as a Hillary Clinton fan. Whoaaah! Critical disconnect there.

You hiss: "You also appear to know sweet stuff-all about Islam or the school system in Indonesia, so you've got some nerve calling me a liar."

I don't know that I called you a liar. I take care to adhere to Iain's rules, so wade back through the thicket of your meandering posts and point out the basis for this accusation.

I do know more about islam than does the average trusting Westerner, as it happens. I also know that a madrassah is not a normal school in Indonesia or anywhere else. It is a hardline islamic outfit. Bahasa Indonesia for 'school' is sekolah. Two different words with two different functions. Obama attended a hardline religious indoctrination centre during his formative childhood years.

I'm off this thread.

Craig Ranapia said...

Thanks, Verity. I actually know what a madrassa is, but you made an assertion that is as ridiculous as saying every school in the United Kingdom and United States is not only a parochial one, but a breeding ground for Christian fundamentalism. 'Cause we know that all Christians are drooling, murderous fanatics - right?

And, sorry, but I don't buy that the numerous media outlets who investigated the allegations that Obama attended a radical Islamofascist madrassa just suppressed the "truth" to get their Towel-head Manchurian Candidate into the White House. Yeah right...

You inserted Obama's (step-)father's religion into this thread, so perhaps you'd like to back up your assertions with some kind of evidence? You know, rather than covering its lack with a lot of bluster?

I actually take the threat of radical Islam (or politicized religious fundamentalism of any stripe, come to that) very seriously. Seriously enough not to trivialise that threat by using it as a political offensive weapon, or undermine my own cause with frankly hysterical and easily disproved conspiracy theories. Prefer to leave that to the loony-leftists, Verity.

I'm off this thread.

Not surprised, Verity. You do tend to flounce off in a huff when challenged to back up you attitude with an argument.