« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Gee, David Brooks, I wish I had said that
I have been trying, clumsily I confess, to communicate the disquiet that Barack Obama produces in me, since several months ago, I noticed that the needle on my bullshit meter began to move alarmingly at every speech he made.
Since my disquiet is first and foremost intuitive and pre-verbal: something I just know, I have been groping in the dark trying to express it. The exchanges here at TPM have both sharpened my intranquillity and the frustration at my inability to express it with sufficient coherence.
Today, to my relief, someone much more endowed then I at analysis and expression, David Brooks, of the New York Times has said most of it much better than I ever could. I invite you to read it.
The Two Obamas - New York Times
Abstract: As recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.(...) Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck. Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck. Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck. Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck. And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now. And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood. The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.(...) Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Advertisement
Comments (51)
I am going away until Sunday and I won't be here to answer all the comments that will be thrown at me.
Suffice to say that I favor strongly the Democrats taking both houses of congress by huge majorities, but I feel it would be an error of tragic proportions if such an instrument were to be placed in the hands Barack Obama.
June 20, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just throw this out there then and sorry I won't be able to back this comment up because I have to go to help my dying grandma fight cancer.
You Post half an article, with nothing to add, and then run. I'm calling you out, you have no self respect, you have no dignity, you are a coward, you might as well be part of fox news.
June 20, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Seaton is a cowardly Republican troll. The fact that this post made the recommended list with only 5 recs shows how few Democrats are reading this blog these days.
June 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase Mr. Seaton: today, to my relief, someone much more endowed then I at analysis and expression, Diet, of TPM, has said most of it much better than I ever could.
Amen, brother. I agree and disagree with aspects of Brooks' column, but this post was a complete waste of my time.
June 20, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to leave out the last part. I'm sure it was by accident. Here let me help you:
"I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics. "
Why don't you actually say why you don't like Obama instead of pointing to half an article. Coward.
June 20, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are not allowed to post the entire article. I did it with Wallerstein and it was taken down.
Brooks, of course is a bullshit artist too. But he is very intelligent and he has found the correct line of attack. Sorry, but I agree with him on nearly everything but the last part.
As we have seen with Bush the character and honesty of the president matter. I don't think the person that Brooks describes will defend any interests but his own.
I'm afraid that "President Obama" will do the same thing to American interests that he did to the Palestinians or to the Reverend Wright.
In short, I think he is totally Machiavellian and unscrupulous and thanks to a mass of besotted imbeciles, he is about to get the greatest concentration of power in the history of the world in his hands.
If I were religious, I would say, with Yeats, that he is "slouching towards Bethlehem to be born".
And you are free to call me anything you like.
June 20, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
And our choice is McCain - Mr. Integrity. Get real. No politician capable of making it to this point is a fool or so idealistic that he can't do pragmatic things. Kucinich, for instance, has no chance. And I do believe that Obama has sharp elbows - useful in posting up in basketball, and in politics.
But I also believe that Obama does represent the best hope we have right now, and all the right-wing rhetoric aside, I think he will be better than you think, and worse than the idealists hope for.
If you prefer McCain, then you are an utter fool, or you really don't care about the Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade or the twin tragedies of economics and education that the neocons are happy to extend for another 4 years. Even if Obama doesn't meet your exalted standards, and even if you can find validation in the slimy world of right-wing punditry, you do us all a disservice by opposing our only real candidate. Criticize him, for sure. Make him stand up for his professed values. Keep him honest (as honest as any politician can be kept), but don't throw him out in favor of the alternative. That's defeatist and foolish in the extreme.
June 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, David, you could have put in the part declaring Obama as ruthless opportunist as Vladimir Putin, yet you left that out - what's the matter, trying to make Fast Eddie look 2nd class?
June 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's interesting about the Fast Eddie comparison is that Eddie Felson it was all about excellence - to be the very best at what you do. He believed in what he did, he had standards, he didn't cut corners and he knew that you had to earn respect, no one handed it to you.
June 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as you're going someplace, David, don't bother returning.
June 20, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting all the different reactions to David Brooks' piece tonight...
David Seaton: Way off base (I won't totally trash you here because I see in your profile that you like Eric Hobsbawm. Hobsbawm rules, so you're OK in my book. :) ).
But I wonder why your highly regarded "bull$hit meter" didn't go off when Brooks called opting-out of Public Funds "a tiny political advantage." Unless D.B. is claiming that a 2-1 or even 3-1 dollar advantage (over $100 million) is "a tiny political advantage", then you should have seen this pile of $hit from over the horizon.
Anyway, I hope you snap in line and vote Barack in November. Especially if you're sending your ex-pat ballot from overseas to a swing state.
June 20, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would vote in Illinois, so I suppose my vote would be wasted.
If I vote, I will vote straight Democrat up to but not including the presidency.
I think a Senate and a Congress with a strong enough majority to override presidential veto is enough power to get everything done. I would have trusted Al Gore with that kind of power, but not Barack Obama, no way.
So for president, I'll probably vote for McCain. Then we have something like they have in Germany, a "grand coalition". McCain has shown over the years that he can work with Democrats (Kennedy-Feingold) to get things done.
June 20, 2008 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain you're thinking of died a few years ago and was assimilated. Don't trust him, and don't assume that a split between the presidency and the Congress is necessarily what's best for the nation. But then, it seems that some of us are bigger stakeholders in this contest than others.
June 20, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Raider. Just wanted to tell you that I'm glad you made it to TPM. Your posts and comments are always level-headed and rational. It's a breath of fresh air.
June 20, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
raider99: I love the description of McCain. "He was assimilated." I hope you don't mind, but I'll have to repeat that every chance I get. He was assimilated into the bloodthirsty Borg-people like on Star Trek. And he's not a benevloent Borg like "Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One." :)
June 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe that is possible. Germany has a parliamentary system, we have an adversarial system. Coalitions are impossible in this country because we have only two parties and as I pointed out the two parties are adversarial. McCain won't be able to hold onto his constituency (which is republicans in congress) he will not be able to form any kind of coalition or consensus and he will need to turn back bills that hurts his constituency.
Also McCain has always voted a straight republican line with very few exceptions.
June 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you vote in 2004 in Illinois? If so, for whom did you vote in the Senate race? Surely not OBAMA!
If not, MAN, WHERE THE F*CK HAVE YOU BEEN? (mentally and politically, I mean. We all know by now that your physical butt has been in Spain since the Roosevelt administration.)
Oh, and why the h*ll did you come back now?
June 23, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any commentary that doesn't understand the context of voting present in Illinois isn't worth the paper it is written on. Which describes everything Brooks writes. That Seaton would use it to justify his opinions is no surprise. He only seems to believe that which supports his prejudice.
June 20, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
>Any commentary that doesn't understand the context of voting present in Illinois isn't worth the paper it is written on.
We agree on that!
June 20, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me they even use it anymore. For one, it is too esoteric for the average voter to understand why it should be a negative. "He was present. That's a good thing right?" It is also easy to refute with a few short facts about how that voting options works in Illinois.
June 20, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 20, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That quote does nothing to prove anything about Obama. It pertains only to a small subgroup of people who are supporting him.
There are also some people who vote without any knowledge whatsoever of the candidates' positions on the issues. There are also some people who vote based entirely on who they "just like" better. There are also some people who will vote based on race. There are also some people who will vote based on whose haircut they like better. David, once again, you've done nothing to support your claims. Once again, you've somehow managed to find fault in him through actions of those who support him.
But of course, you don't use the same "critical eye" on McCain.
But, I think I've finally pegged you. It all really just makes sense now.
June 20, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Hilary - I'm constantly running into people who explain his opposite stance on issues as only political necessity (it'll change after he's elected, he has to do/say this for now) and ascribe their own personal circumstances and motives to the Obamas (the student loan thing came up again for one, and I don't think the admirer pulls down $250K/year to equate circumstance). They'll psychoanalyze Obama statements to give the best possible spin on them, and of course anything from his campaign that wasn't filmed coming from him is disavowed as completely unrelated to him if negative.
Just a few months ago it was "Hillary's too divisive, all she wants to do is fight with Republicans while Obama will reach across the aisle". Now it's becoming, "it wasn't going to be politics as usual, but the Republicans didn't play fair & honest, so I have to respond their way or even tougher." Is hope and change only based on whether the Republicans play ball? That is cynical - the "they made me do it" campaign.
June 20, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hell, at least they know what his stated views on the issues are. I keep running into people who are still telling me, "I just don't know anything about him." What? Excuse me, but where the hell have you been for the past year? At this point, if you don't know anything about him, that's on you.
Look, I don't know what you want him to do. Get up and say, "No, seriously guys, this is really what I think." He's repeatedly said, "We will disagree at times." If there are still people who are convinced he's secretly holding back his real views till he gets elected, well then, again, that's on them.
About this whole new politics business. I want one thing: A Democrat in the White House. Brooks is most apt on this statement:
Awhile back now, somewhere around the Iowa/New Hampshire/N.C speeches, I turned to my brother and said, "This guy is a masterful politician." It is so much harder to attack him because of this.
Let me tell you where I want to see change, and where I have hope. I want to see people get up off their asses and get involved. I want them to go to the polls and vote, and then think, Ok, that's a good start. Not Ok, I've done my duty, now you fix this shit. It's a big risk. I don't know if it will happen. But it's a gamble I'm willing to take. It's the only way we're going to get anything done around here. If I'm disappointed, so be it. I'll be just as willing to take that risk the next time around.
But I'm sick of arguing all this innuendo. Well, you have a feeling about him? Great. My gut tells me something else. Argument ends there. It's irrational. You just can't argue with it. I won't pretend there aren't problems with Obama. I've said as much elsewhere. But trying to convince someone who just "knows" something is a fool's errand. Let's talk about his problems. Let's talk about the issues. Let's talk strategy, or the weaknesses in his electability. But what is there to say to someone who thinks they're possessed with some inherent understanding that the rest of us are just too dumb to see?
June 20, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des.... You're just pulling people's tails now. About those people you're "always running into." I won't say "find a better crowd to run into." (Errrr.... scratch that.) I've been in a load of corporate, political & NGO offices - and maybe 20% (bein' generous here) really had the lights on, who could open up their beliefs in depth, ask wild-ass questions.
Most people, once they're behind something, hang on to that tail pretty tight. And EVERYONE has some things where they're just bein' dragged along behind. (Go on, ask me about Bobby Kennedy. His death changed me when I was 9. I'm stupid about it now, because that change ran so deep.)
So yes, it's worth talking to those people you run into. But which would you rather engage in - bull-fighting or cow-tipping? (Shit. Bad example again. Cow-tipping RULES!)
You know damn well, for instance, that any good Dem candidate is BOTH gonna "reach across the aisle" AND "play nasty" with Republicans. Because, errrr, there are some differences in that 60 million person pool; and because there are some times & places to reach across, and some where you can't/won't.
And to some, it'll look like "contradictions." And sometimes it is. But other times, maybe it's just being smart, dealing with complex realities, having to dance to music someone else is playing.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
June 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I'm waiting for the cow-tipping diary, not the Walt Whitman (Do I tip myself? then I tip myself. I am large, I contain ruminant stomachs. No cudding.)
June 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You had to do the "cud" thing, didn'tja? I give ya a grand ole soul like Uncle Walt, and this is the thanks I get. Well... all I can say to you, young person, is that once the cheap laughs & the temporary friends are gone, what'll you have then?
Oh fuck it. Go for the cheap laughs. It's a rush.
June 20, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think Leaves of Grass is all about? An homage to lawn mowing? Hell no, it's a bovine delight, an ode to grazing and then some, I tell you. (A homosexual bovine delight, actually, cattle prancing in the nude doing the antler dance and what not and rutting like mountain goats, but that part's a little more subtle - you have to read the Cliff Notes to get it).
June 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former shepherd (yesssss..... this is true), I can assure you there was no "antler dancing" going on in MY herd. Harumph.
But the Shepherds Convention? Whooooo-wheeee babeeeee!
June 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Desidero is imagining things about seeing a lot of such people, then apparently Glenn Greenwald has been seeing such things too:
I believe that if that had been posted on this site under another name, more than a few people would have called him a troll.
Ya know, this is why I don't like the whole "I'm a suppporter of XXX" thing on forums that are supposed to be more for discussion vs. a political action website. Semantically, supporter to me means the unconditional love of a Mom or a sports team fan, or, a political candidate's website that is meant to rev up the troops, pep rally style. And I've seen a lot of "supporters" here who won't brook anything even a smidgen like criticism of their candidate, and yes, I don't respect them as voters or analysts. A voter who prefers a candidate is one thing, a rabid supporter is another, a mom who would rip to shreds anyone who says anything bad about her kid. In my view, politicians don't really need any more "supporters" of that kind than their own family and staff, it gives them big heads and leads them to think they can do anything they want to do. They should be put in a place of continually having to prove themselves to their employers (us.)
I would like to add that Greenwald also has a message for the David Seaton types there. His past writings that went for the hyperbole of calling Obama a "monster" or similar may have gotten him great knee-jerk reaction but forever hurt his ability to be taken seriously. I find it hard to believe that he didn't do that on purpose, because he has enough experience at writing to know what kind of reactions certain stylings can get. I think he has used it in th past to do the same thing here M.J. Rosenberg often does here, uses it as a playground to post knee-jerk and bait people into certain reactions. If he had thought out some of his past postings before hitting the "send" button, he'd be in a better position now. But I suspect he wanted to see those reactions happen, in order to prove something.
June 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
June 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a word in there that I don't agree with. I'll be the first to tell someone they're batshit crazy if they think we should elect anyone without question.
What's so fascinating to me is that it's mostly his opposition who paints him as "pure, transformative Good." I assure you, rational people who support Obama don't see a man without important flaws. Who don't disagree with him on many levels.
It will always be the case in any election that there will be irrational people voting.
As to this, from Des:
Is he really the only candidate you've ever heard people say that about? How about McCain? Think he's making a shift to the right? Think it'll dent his "maverick" image that's been built up? I've heard people say it about Obama and McCain. Why's McCain hugging Hagee? Flip-flopping on his own bills? Oh, he just has to do that to get elected. He doesn't really mean it.
Hell, "he's just doing it to get elected" is the response half the time any candidate "flip-flops" or "moves to the center". Think no one ever said that about Bill Clinton?
June 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Overall I found Hillary rather unsurprising. In a good way.
June 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, we'll never know how she would have moved her views in the general.
My point is, this is nothing new to politics, but it seems to bother people more in this instance.
June 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any blogger who assumes that the Democrats are going to gain a veto proof majority in November, and uses that wild assumption to justify voting for War Monger McCain, is not worth reading.
June 20, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Americans frequently like gridlock in Washington - they think it's better to keep the rascals hamstrung. Is this something new to you?
June 20, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, why don't you get it over with and just admit you feel queasy about the possibility of an uppity Negro occupying the White House, cuz it's just scary! The subtext of many of your posts has made it clear that your "disquiet" is color-coded.
Try as you might, you just can't clearly articulate what it is that you don't like about that black man - this is the same craven racist line I have heard many times over the years in various situations from various bigots who are just smart enough (or cowardly enough) to go right up to the line and preserve plausible deniability, but still make it obvious (nudge nudge, wink wink) that blackness is what gives them the horrors.
June 20, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting dynamic here is that the same conservative writers who were building Obama up against Hillary Clinton are now tearing him down. Predictable. My guess is that David would not be as critical of Clinton if she were the candidate as he is of Obama.
As for ttarleton and the "blackness" thing. What is "blackness?"
June 20, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he'd be as critical of Hillary, just in different ways. Brooks' job is to be a conservative hack and hatchet man. His journalistic integrity fails him if it's not a pro-Republican spin.
June 20, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
My fault. I meant Seaton. Forgot Brooks was a David, too.
June 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, and my head exploded for nothing.
June 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a serious question?
June 20, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blackness question, that is.
June 20, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just in case you are serious:
blackness = the state of being black = being a black person = the person in question is black (African American)
This is a very common construction, not invented by me.
June 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, you must really learn not to quote whole pieces.
June 20, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the campaign finance issue:
As I posted over at Eric's roundup...
DairyStateMom says it best:
June 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to have a truthful discussion about politics.
June 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said in the past, you're a goddamn Republican. Whether you care to admit it to yourself or not.
June 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Obama is that he is vague. Being vague is a huge asset for a politician, and Obama knows this. People don't know where he really stands, or more accurately, to what degree he is supportive of an issue. How far left is he, really? We don't know.
He talks about post-partisanship, but so far this has existed mostly in tone rather than policy.
Then, there are the character questions. Earlier on, back in January and February, I thought this guy was a very honest person. I don't know who this guy is after what he did yesterday. Dems can tout his willingness to do what it takes to win all they want, but just remember what he did yesterday was simply and unequivocally the breaking of his word. Twice. You tell me how Obama can give another speech about a new kind of politics. He'll look like a total fraud.
You forget why Obama's candidacy had such potential and power: he seemed a good man with a message that ordinary people could do extraordinary things, that America is a great country, that anything is possible here. That's idealism. It's powerful. One of the reasons it resonated was because people sensed that he was speaking from his heart. When the speaker believes his words, he adds power to them, and meaning.
Now, he breaks his word. Think about what that means for a minute, without a partisan lens. He did it without apparent shame, and couched it in a bunch of self-serving crap about how the system is broken.
In fact, Obama, since winning the nomination, has largely abandoned his new politics. Where is it? He has impugned McCain's character and integrity. It's like all of a sudden the new politics is meaningless. I remember what it was like watching this guy in January and February. He truly had the high ground, and people responded. Now, all those speeches about a new politics can be made to look cynical. Something to be discarded once the primary was over. All those people that were inspired, all those rallies, what are they, just peons for Obama to manipulate? Remember all his rhetoric about hopes and dreams? Was all that just a ploy to get votes?
All these questions are possible because we don't know who this guy is. He broke his word twice yesterday and that bothers people. Was this all just some cynical ploy? The candidate of hope turns out to be one of the most cynical of all?
My rant is over. I never intended to support the guy anyway. But I thought he was a man of integrity, for a pol. Who knows now. And I assure you, I'm not the only poor idiot that feels that way in this country. If Obama thinks he can get away with this and that it will all be forgotten, he's wrong. His own wife said a while back, your word is your bond. Wonder what team Obama thinks about that now.
June 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what strange prisms Seaton views our current situation through. He's lame and has been gone to too long to accurately analyse the US of A circa 2008.
What concerns me is that Seaton could be explaining thingees to his El Mundo audience in his warped and skewey manner. Some may find him credible.
Sometimes he cracks me up with titles like:
" OK David, If You're So Smart...."
What a classic.
McCain thinks he can "drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon". How ya gonna do that, flyboy? Is genocide an option for you or are you completely ignorant of reality there? Neither possibility is acceptable.
June 20, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concrrrn trole is concrrrrrrnd!
But im on ur sid. Rlly!!
Itz jess that im jess sadd an concrrrrrnd cuz u cant c hao rong u r.
An iff u cant c hao rong u r buy nao, u muss jess be stoopid.
But them guyz on teh othr side hoo hait evrytheng i sed i stan 4, there sew smart an stuf. U gotta bleev em b4 itz 2 lait!
June 23, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment