« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
HILLARY SUPPORTERS: FROM ONE MOTHER TO ANOTHER, I'M BEGGING YOU
"I don't wanna fly anymore, Doc. I've flown 35 missions, but Cathcart's raised the number to 50 before you can rotate out."
"I can't ground anyone just because they ask me to."
"Can you ground anyone who's crazy?"
"Of course I can. There's a rule that says I can ground anyone who's crazy."
"I'M crazy!"
"How do you know?"
"Ask anyone...They all say I'm crazy."
"I tell you who's crazy. He's crazy. Anyone has to be crazy to keep flying after all the close calls he's had."
"Why can't you ground HIM?"
"I can, but first he has to ask me."
"That's all he's gotta do to be grounded?"
"That's all."
"Then you can ground him."
"No...There's a catch."
"A catch?"
"Sure. Catch 22. Anybody who wants to get out of combat isn't really crazy, so I can't ground him."
"Okay. Let me see if I've got this straight. In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy, and I must be crazy to keep flying, but if I ask to be grounded, it means I'm not crazy anymore and I have to keep flying."
"You got it. That's Catch 22."
"That's some catch, that Catch 22."
"It's the best there is."
--Catch 22, 1970 movie directed by Mike Nichols, screenplay by Buck Henry, based on the 1961 bestselling novel by Joseph Heller. In this scene, Alan Arkin's Yossarian is speaking to Jack Gilford's Doc Daneeka.
It was just an exquisite irony that our copy of Time magazine arrived in the mail on the same night that my husband got in the mood to watch the DVD of Catch 22.
On the cover was a Prozac capsule, and half of the capsule was camouflage green. The headline was, "The Military's Secret Weapon," with the subtitle, "For the first time in history, thousands of U.S. troops are being given antidepressant drugs to deal with battlefield stress. Is this any way to fight a war?"
The story, by Mark Thompson, can be found online here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html
The article is about the terrible toll taken on our military fighting forces under the repeated demands of constant deployments, over and over again, to Iraq and Afghanistan.
How suicides in-country have skyrocketed.
How each successive deployment becomes harder and harder on the emotional health of our troops, how after they get back, they are suffering worse symptoms of post traumatic stress with each deployment.
How, when they report symptoms--IF they report them--of anxiety, restlessness, depression, irritability and short temper, difficulty sleeping, nightmares, and other problems directly related to combat, the military in all its ancient wisdom responds by prescribing record amounts of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, and sleeping medications.
How, for the first time in history, soldiers and Marines are heading off to combat situations with up to a third of them taking these medications while deployed.
You see, before, if a troop was showing severe signs of stress on the battlefield, he or she would be medivacced out and given treatment at a hospital. But the soldiers and Marines are stretched so thin right now that, increasingly, the military is relying on these medications to treat the soldiers, so that they can be kept in combat.
Understand--this is not a criticism of the military or of the troops.
I want to make that perfectly clear.
My family members have served a total of SEVEN tours to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they tell me how much harder it is to go back each successive time. I can see for myself the problems they have readjusting.
I also do not mean to imply that these fine young men and women are not capable of performing their jobs magnificently under intense pressure--although studies have shown that repeated deployments, extended deployments, and less time at home--do lead to more mistakes being made and the greater likelihood that a troop will be killed or get someone else killed due to the fatigue and stress.
But the fact is that when you are in a combat situation, you do not have access to psychologists or even M.D.'s. Many times, these drugs are provided for the guys on their deployments but there is nobody to monitor the dose, side effects, or even to provide a modicum of counseling for handling the stress that has provoked the need in the first place.
Our military is doing the best it can, under impossible conditions, to maintain a groaning level of troops without a national draft that could replenish the forces that are constantly demanded by our civilian commander in chief to fight his war the way he wants it fought.
The troops are exhausted, their families unraveling, and stress symptoms skyrocketing. They're stretched so thin that even if a troop tries to commit suicide while stateside between deployments, even if he or she is COMMITTED to a psychiatric facility, even if they're being treated for serious PTSD--THEY ARE BEING SENT BACK ANYWAY.
"Boy, it's really nice to have these drugs, so we can keep people deployed."
--remark made by an army doctor to Joyce Raezer of the National Military Family Association, quoted in the article.
In fact, troops who were blown up in a previous deployment and are undergoing physical therapy or surgery for their injuries ARE SENT BACK ANYWAY--sometimes just days following operations. (A nephew to actress Mia Farrow was recently flown out of Baghdad to undergo surgery, then returned to the battlefield right after being released from the hospital, while still on a liquid diet. He died in his sleep not long after, in Iraq.)
AND NOW, MY MESSAGE TO HILLARY SUPPORTERS:
According to Wired.com, angry Hillary supporters are starting up websites pledging support to John McCain. The Republican Party is understandably salivating over this, and planning a ClintonsforMcCain drive. Just in this past week, thousands have visited these websites.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html
One website founder was quoted as saying, "People feel upset, and not listened to, and a lot of people feel they are being thrown under the bus."
And so, in their rage, they are planning to vote for John McCain. Some are so angry they say they won't even vote for Obama if Hillary is on the ticket with him.
I assume that most of the men and women who are signing up on these angry websites are mothers and fathers.
So, from one mother to another, I am begging you.
Since 99.5% of this nation's population is NOT fighting Bush's War, then I must assume that 99.5% of the angry Hillary supporters DO NOT HAVE LOVED ONES FIGHTING in Bush's War either.
And since John McCain has pledged to continue that war for years and years, or until his vague and unspecified "victory" conditions are met, then I assume these same moms and dads, who DO NOT have to face the agony of sending their child away to die or get blown to pieces, not once, but repeatedly...have not actually thought about what that vote would mean.
Did you know that, in order to shield Americans from dead troops, the flag-draped caskets, which are often flown in the cargo holds of commercial airliners from Dover to their homes, are hidden in CARDBOARD BOXES?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/books/05maslin.html?ref=books
We treat our pets better in this country.
So I'm assuming that the angry Hillary supporters who feel "upset" and "not listened to" might then be able to EMPATHIZE with desperate military mothers who DO have to deal with these fears, because NOBODY LISTENS TO THE TROOPS--OR THEIR FAMILIES--EITHER.
How do you think THEY feel?
I am an Obama supporter but you better believe I'd have voted for Hillary in a HEARTBEAT over John McCain, I don't care how angry, or upset or vengeful and resentful I felt, because there is a whole helluva lot more at stake here than my hurt feelings, when it comes to men and women being given drugs to numb their anxiety about having to fight a third or fourth time in a war that might send them home in a cardboard box.
In her graceful and eloquent concession speech, Hillary Clinton, while urging her supporters to rally behind Obama, compared the Democratic Party to "a family."
I know that, in my own family, with my sisters and brother, we've had many fights, some bitter, some just annoying, but none of us have EVER done anything that might bring actual harm to another member of our family. We would never dream of it.
Recently, I hailed a friend of mine at the bank. Her son did a deployment to Iraq with the army National Guard, and had been home, and back in civilian life for two years now. Everything was fine, but when I asked how she was doing, she said, "Well, my son is going to have to go back to Iraq this summer." (The National Guard is being asked to replace returning "surge" units in order to maintain these pre-surge troop levels.)
I was shocked, and sorry, and she said, "I keep telling myself, he's going to be fine. He's going to come back. He's going to be fine."
And then she burst into tears.
A vote for John McCain is a vote for insanity.
It is a vote to continue this Groundhog Day Catch-22 war.
I am begging you.
BEGGING YOU.
Please, please do not let the emotion of the moment cause you to hand the reins of power over to a man under whose watch more and more flag-draped caskets will be flown home in cardboard boxes.
"You admit you have a persecution complex."
"I admit I'm being persecuted."
"By whom?"
"By THEM."
"But who, specifically, is THEM?"
"Who do you think?"
"I haven't any idea."
"Then how do you know they AREN'T? Those bastards are trying to kill me!"
"You ought to get your head examined."
--Catch 22, the movie. Remarks made by Alan Arkin's Yossarian to Martin Sheen's Dobbs.
I know that Hillary supporters are feeling persecuted.
They think that somebody is trying to kill them--psychically speaking.
But as a military mom, I can tell you that REAL PEOPLE are trying to kill MY FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHERS in Bush's War.
According to a recent survey in the Army Times, more than 60% of military families now think the Iraq war was a mistake and want it to end.
In another survey done of junior officers, well over THREE-FOURTHS of the officers--close to 80%--disagreed with the way the war had been handled. Most of them do not stay in the military--even though they want to--because they do not want to go back to Iraq.
WHO IS LISTENING TO THEM?
You don't have to like Obama or even do as Hillary asks, which is to put your passion and energy into putting a Democrat into the White House, even if it's not her. But please, if you can't vote for him, stay home.
Do not put a man in the White House who will continue this insanity of a war.
Because THAT would be truly crazy...wouldn't it?
Comments (95)
You are the best messenger against this war, Deanie!
June 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks TheraP, but I feel like a voice crying out in the wilderness if nobody's listening. ('cept you of course!)
Reason I say that is that, usually, if I write ANYTHING related to the war, I get about five recommendations and two comments. (one from me)
June 7, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
These words are from the last speech that MLK gave.
“Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.” Martin Luther King, “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” April 3rd, 1968.
We need to stop the war and improve social services in this country. McCain won't do either.
1968-2008 Forty Years
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
June 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, Many of us are listening. Please keep writing.
June 7, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you lucywho! (waving, dabbing eyes)
June 7, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Deanie! Though, the real problems within those Clinton Voters are not about the war and what to do. In fact, one of the most frustrating parts of this campaign for any Clinton Supporter was Obama's insistence of never talking about anything specific about Issues. Still, he hasn't done it. There are flip flops on Iraq policy for sure...but nothing definite. I intend to work for Obama and vote for him in the fall....but for me its hard to get excited about someone with those few of actual hard Policies.
June 7, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing I have heard from people outside of the party on the war is that we've had control of Congress now for almost 2 years...we've not slowed it in any substantive way in those 2 years.....there are questions about that.
June 7, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cassius;
"I intend to work for Obama and vote for him in the fall....but for me its hard to get excited about someone with those few of actual hard Policies."
Sounds sorta trollish to me.
Seriously, why do you always fgeel the need reassure us that you WILL be a loyal Obamabot, then follow up with thinly veiled criticism accusing Obama of vague policies.
Have you ever actually gone to the website to get answers to your questions? Maybe you need to do that, post one of your questions here then go see if you can;t find it on the website and come back here with the answer. If you can;t find that answer, then tellus about it, but I have looked closely enough, and started a mybarackobama metworking page, and I will tell you they cover all the issues you seem incapable of finding an answer for.
So please, you would reassure all of us you are exactly what you claim to be if you tried this little exercise in personal research yourself.
Otherwise, I wonder why you must keep reminding us over and over again that you "WILL be loyal when the time comes, BUT...."
Too many "buts" for my apranoid self.
June 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been no "flip flops" on the war by Obama. He's been consistent and he's been definite:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
And yes, we've had Congress for two years and we're still there. The reason is simple: Constitutionally, only the President can order troops redeployed. All Congress could do is cut off funding for operations. Bush has made it clear that if Congress does that, he'll leave the troops there and let "the Democrat Congress" explain to the voters why they cut off funds for food, ammo and fuel to troops in a war zone.
We've got to take every bit of our equipment with us--equipment we've spent five years pouring in there. Every tank, every helicopter, every box of bullets, every shell. And we have to figure out a way to keep from becoming a target once our troop levels fall to a point that we become a tempting target.
Retreats are the most difficult and most delicate military operations of all. Damn near every battle in history that ever turned into a one-sided slaughter became that because of a badly run retreat. Just cutting off funding, while emotionally appealing to angry people who don't really know anything about military operations, would almost inevitably lead to a disaster.
That's why Obama has been talking about one brigade a month for two years now, and its why all the other Democrats eventually started saying the same thing. It's because that's the fastest we can get out and a) take all of our stuff with us and, b) not turn ourselves into a target.
June 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really good post.
The Great and Growing Divide
Many of us watched today as Hillary Clinton said something that physically hurt to hear. She asked us to support Barack Obama. Loyal Democrat that she is, and true to her word, Hillary did the unimaginable. She asked the rest of us to support someone that many of us actually loathe. And that is putting it mildly.
But Hillary did something else today that is already having ramifications throughout the country. Hillary supporters are taking sides. And there are basically two camps. One camp that is sticking with the party and one camp that isn’t
Reforming the party from within is wishful thinking. The only way a party reforms is by humiliating defeat, running off the rails, or egregious abuse in the opposition party.
If BO is elected, they will be in charge of the party…in fact are in charge of the party as we speak. Try to go talk to them about reform. Go talk to them about counting every vote…about changing the caucus system to transparent primaries. Tell them how you feel about it. I think we all know what the attitude will be.
For me…my only recourse is to withhold my support from the current party leadership and the BO party leadership. It’s a drop in the bucket but I don’t feel like I will be complicit in Republican style tactics…even if they worked.
Ronmaven echoed the sentiment and clarified it:
The defeat of Obama would be the best kick in the pants for the DNC we could possibly deliver. You want to CHANGE the party? Vote for McCain. You want the party to only get worse? Vote for O.
To some, NOT supporting Obama is the moral thing to do.
Ccwarrior perhaps says it best:
easy decision for me I will sellout the party that SOLD me out. and I can live with that. I would never dis-respect my daughters, and vote for Obama after the treatment they witnessed from him doing this election …NEVER
But I have saved the best for last. Before I put it out there I want to make one thing very clear. I have nothing but the deepest respect for linfar. She has been a staunch Hillary supporter and she is such an excellent writer. I just happen to totally disagree with her about Obama and unfortunately may have to write things in the future that criticize her positions. It isn’t something I look forward to.
But having said that I think that unfortunately linfar grabbed a mug full of the Cult-Aide today because low and behold, she quotes from none other than the Prince of Darkness himself (Jonathan Singer) to make her point.
from mydd
Singer: Can you speak to the online supporters, the people online who are so strong for Hillary, who don’t want to see her leave, as a strong
Hillary supporter yourself?
Sen. Chuck Schumer: As a strong Hillary support I say, look, I was for Hillary all the way. I was sort of the first Senator to endorse her and I guess I’ll be the last off the bandwagon, which I guess will be tomorrow. But, having said that, I would say to all of the people online, there’s too much at stake to sit this out, to be angry, to be bitter. There is too much at stake. A Supreme Court with more Alitos and Roberts. A continuation of the war in Iraq.
A failure to have a healthcare policy that helps people. A failure to have an energy policy that frees us from foreign oil. All these are such huge things that we have to do what Hillary said there, which is overcome, not look back, even though there are lot’s of disappointments, but look forward.
I expected these bugaboos coming from Schumer. But a little reality never hurt anyone. Except Cultists I’m told. We hear the same nonsense you would expect from otherwise seemingly reasonable people. The trouble is that they think they will be able to bamboozle and scare us with their line of bullshit.
Everything Schumer mentions is something that the Congress controls, not the President. Supreme Court… confirmed by the Senate. Iraq War funding…. controlled by Congress. Health Care policy…. written by Congress. Energy policy… written by Congress.
SO WAKE UP! And stop letting these people get away with lying to you.
The reason Bush has got away with so much and has done as much damage as he has these past 7 years is because of a weak, feckless and complicit Congress. A Congress that has allowed him to do everything he has done. Because a strong Congress acting in the best interests of the American people would never have allowed Bush to do many of the things they are so fond of complaining about.
Where were the Articles of Impeachment? The Speaker of the House said that they would never be introduced.
Why has the Congress continued to fund the war? The Senate Majority leader doesn’t know how to throw a knock out punch.
Why are Americans still being spied upon? WHY?!?
In fact, the Supreme Court that Schumer and others are warning us about has done more to stop Bush than all of the Democrats in Congress combined. So enough of these silly myths. I half expect Obama to come out next and state: “You are either for us or against us.” Wanna guess what my answer will be?
These spats. This falling apart is expected. And it will likely become more vicious and personal as the days wear on. I fully understand those that are toeing the party line. I used to be one of them. Until this year. Until the Democratic party proved to me that it didn’t really stand for anything any more.
June 7, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How very cut-and-pasty of you, Michelle. How many other comment sections have you posted this diatribe in?
June 7, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has been an explosion of posts on progressive blogs in which various speakers express their deep anger and moral unwillingness to ever vote for Obama, even though they supported Senator Clinton deeply and truly.
Before responding or taking these too seriously, one might want to read the post on the main TPM page called "Silent Majority." Remember, McCain and his staff know that they cannot possibly attract Clinton supporters by speaking about issues. Therefore, they have every incentive to personalize and moralize about how it's just 'impossible' to support Obama.
Naturally, every voter is both morally and the legally entitled to vote as he or she pleases...no one disputes that. But I'd ask the real Clinton supporters who are considering a 'protest' vote for McCain, or an abstention in protest, to look carefully at McCain's positions -- especially his positions as he stated them before it became obvious he would be the Republican nominee this year. (His previous positions have been vanishing from his website, as documented by several blogs).
If you still want to vote for McCain after careful consideration of his views, that's your right, and we all honor that. But if you're considering it out of anger, or because Senator Clinton was "cheated" -- and if that anger is stoked by posts like Ms. Bociurkiw's -- consider who might be stoking that anger, and why?
And remember: in a two-party system, abstaining is not a neutral act (though it is a moral and legal one, to be sure). Abstaining, or voting in protest, has consequences for outcomes, and the prudent votes who cares not about perfection, but about the possibility that things could be at least a little better, should weigh this fact.
(When I pointed this out during the primaries, angry posters accused me of being a "moderate Leninist," a Clinton-supporter, an Obama-supporter, and a fascist. Go figure.)
Still, if you're tempted to vote your passions, not your prudence, at least ask who it is who is whipping your passions up.
June 8, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a GOP troll. You keep posting the same drivel on every thread, and never respond to comments. You are a waste of air and real estate.
Go Cheney yourself.
June 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
MICHELLEBOCIURKIW,
I respect our differences but to me, politics is personal when it can get my son killed.
You want to send some kind of message to the Democratic Party? That's fine.
I want to keep my family alive.
My son did two Marine Corps combat deployments to Iraq; my nephew did three Marine Corps combat deployments to Iraq; one of my nephews is in Iraq now in a combat capacity and has been there well more than a year thanks to the so-called "surge," and yet another nephew has been to Afghanistan.
My son's Marine Corps unit has been to Iraq FOUR times. Next year? Afghanistan.
Most Americans don't even care that there is a war on, and I am desperately sorry that sticking it to Obama and the Democrats has somehow become more important than sending a message to these exhausted and stressed-out troops that they have not been forgotten.
Because they truly are. With all of your reasons poured out for hating Obama and the Democrats, you never once addressed the fact that John McCain will keep this war going, and THAT is what saddens me the most.
And frankly, referring to me and others like me as Cultists shows just how far off the subject we have strayed.
It mocks me and my real concerns, despises me for disagreeing, reduces me to a scornful label, and argues that Party ideology is somehow more important than WAR.
The Mills family has had a precious loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan for six years now, without a break. That is seven combat deployments to Bush's War that John McCain pledges to continue.
But that's all right. The next time I send off a Care package or listen to another mother cry, I'll remember that these things no longer matter.
Deanie
June 7, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty damned obvious that most of these "angry" people are simply using their "anger" over Hillary not getting the nomination as cover to not vote for Obama because he's black. That's all it is.
Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they're progressive. There are many Dems that are Dems because they're pro-labor/union. Outside of that they can be as close-minded, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and militiristic as any right-winger. Those where HILLARY SUPPORTERS making racist phone-calls to Jim Clyburn's office.
So don't be fooled by these people. I'm glad they're exposing themselves like this. No true progressive would ever even entertain the thought of voting for John McCain.
June 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
StarkyLuv,
There's no doubt that some people -- I really don't know how many -- are looking for excuses not to vote for Senator Obama, when their motivation is at least partly driven by racial animosity. The history of racism in this country has been too long and too pervasive for us to deny that.
But those people will find their excuse somewhere, no matter what, so they are mostly a lost cause.
I see two other things in many of the "If not Clinton, then McCain" posts proliferating on progressive blogs:
1) A very old position that emerges in most strongly-ideological thinkers, namely "worse is better." This was a position one came across in hard-line Marxist thinkers, who argued that oppression was a good thing because it would, someday, lead to a revolution. Other ideological movements take it up, usually when their hope of actually changing things has been dashed. And people personally disappointed will sometimes adopt this line of thought: only total defeat can cure the Democratic party, as one poster suggested above.
It's a dangerous line of thought that has, in past cases, justified horrendous behavior. I"m not accusing the "If not Clinton then McCain" posters of such intentions, but they should think about where the logic of their thinking leads, and look at the history of political movements. Ruin, catastrophe and oppression have _rarely_ led to real transformations for the better: worse, unfortunately, is worse, and remains worse.
Calm and steadfast attention to McCain's actual positions, and to the consequences of 8 years of Republican control at the top, are the main tools for persuading these people to reconsider, I'd say.
2) The other contingent among the anti-Obama posters may simply be cynical operators that want to undermine Obama and strengthen McCain (See the post in the main TPM page showing that such a strategy is in the McCain campaign's mind). Since they can't possibly persuade Clinton voters on the issues, they will stir the flames of victimhood, anger, outraged moralism, political perfectionism, and anything else that might keep some Clinton primary voters angry. These voices should be ignored.
June 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie,
As a mother and an American, I thank you and urge you to keep posting. I so agree with you - the fact is that anyone voting for McCain and if he is elected will have to accept the responsibility for those who are wounded and killed in this ill-conceived war.
And Michelle, your rationalizations make me wonder - if you were a supporter of HRC - I'm assuming you valued her judgment - yet now choose to disregard/disrespect it. And would you please give specifics/facts based on his actions/words on why you 'loathe' Obama - it might give more credence to your post.
Again, Deanie - Thank you so very much for taking the time and effort to post this, please don't stop delivering your message/reminder.
June 7, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. What makes you "loathe" Obama? What are the hateful things he did to disrespect Hillary during the campaign? He didn't announce a kitchen sink strategy. He didn't set up the primary schedule or insist on caucuses. I'm actually interested in learning what has stoked your anger regarding Obama, beyond the fact that he won?
June 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many of these Hillary supporters turned McCain supporters have young sons and daughters. Who will fight McCain's Wars? How long will it be before this self professed one term President reinstates the military draft to fill his ranks? Draft Boards have already been staffed, (apx 2 years ago) across this country just in case they are needed thanks to the Bush Administration. McCain wouldn't be worried about re-election. Who better to pull this off for the Pentagon and the military?
June 7, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. we are not voting for him because he's black...pretty darn funny.
sorry about your son but obama is not any closer to resolving that issue than mccain. if putting obama in office really meant that i would problably vote for him.
the congress and the senate will decide that. make sure you vote for someone strong for both legislative houses and your concerns will be addressed.
June 7, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, McCain says it's fine with him to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and to continue the war for at least 10 more; Obama has stated that he will begin pulling out soldiers within 6 months, and end the war, but you will vote for McCain!
The reason isn't because of anything except you are a GOP troll. We all know that, so just go away!
Oh, it is is very touching about your nieces and nephews -- we all know who goes into the army, and it is not the people who vote for the Dubya's and McCain's of this world.
June 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have have young neices and nephews and fill comfortable that mccain will have no choice but to make the right decision. sfter hearing obama at AIPAC he sounds more hawkish on war than mccain. let's get real i really do not think mccain nor anyone else will make the mistakes bush did regarding war again.
June 7, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's your first mistake in adress democrats. the "democratic" party is not the "progressive" party. "progressives" are just a part of the democratic party. i do not claim to be progressive nor liberal. never have, nor never will. i was a socially moderate fiscally conservative democrat. i am now an independent.
June 7, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Friend of mine in Chicago did a bit of research (very computer savvy) and says there is no one there with the name michelle bociurkiw. Also informed that this name only surfaced in last few months on blogs with the subject always Anti-Obama. Hmmmm. Also, the postings are not uniform in grammar, punctuation, etc. and (he's also a reporter)believes this name is used by different individuals for these negative postings. He's thinking of doing a story on TROLLS now.
June 7, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so? You have the content of each comment right in front of you each time. Does it really matter what name is attached to content? In the end, it's the content that counts. How are anti-Obama comments from two or three people using the same name and volunteers for another candidate any different from anti-Obama comments from a single user using their own name and not affiliated with any campaign?
How is a pro-Obama spinner who never volunteered with the campaign itself different from a pro-Obama spinner who actually volunteered to say good things about Obama on blogs? Both support Obama in their spinning. I don't see any difference.
To someone like me who doesn't really get much out of the spinning for any candidate, sometimes it seems real absurd, this paranoia about professional supporters on blogs. To me, a heck of lot of you are spinning, pro and amateur. But I see that a lot of people like to do that. I don't call it trolling.
Heck, Deanie Mills is a professional writer, ya know. And she has an agenda, she has some pretty strong positions on the war, and she tries to persuade people about that. She's friends with other people who are against the war. She might even, gasp, belong to some organizations related to that agenda. Is that a plot, a conspiracy? Does that make her a troll?
I don't get the paranoid method of looking at this, looking for a conspiracy. Either comments are quality comments or they are lousy comments. You are not capable of making that decision, you need someone to find a conspiracy, i.d. a "troll"? Trollish comments are trollish comments, coming from all points of view. The traditional definition of troll is someone who tries to inflame your emotions with insults and baiting in orde to get you to continue to debate on the topic they want to create buzz on, and the traditional way to take care of that problem is not to feed them.
The reason I bring this up is that this is going to come up with McCain volunteers coming to liberal sites. I don't see any reason if they are civil and make guality comments in good faith why they shouldn't be welcomed, it shouldn't matter whether they are doing it as a signed-up volunteer or a non-signed up supporter. The quality of the commenting is the key. Josh Marshall always said conservatives are welcome here if they come for good faith discussion.
June 7, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It matters when it is not an individual who sincerely has a point of view based on their own beliefs, but instead is part of a concentrated effort to spread untruths and and agenda is to distort and inflame.
'Josh Marshall always said conservatives are welcome here if they come for good faith discussion.'
In this case, this is not their intent nor their goal.
June 7, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
SPOT-ON! Aunt Sam, you hit the hypocrisy nail on the head here. Posers, sockpuppets and provocotuers never come here in good faith, they appear only to divide us, not to carry on a healthy debate about real issues.
I'm all for Republicans getting on board and expressing their opinions,but when the agenda is deception, at any level, the entire conversation is tainted, and turned from all reason, just by the presence of one poser.
Yoo many good threads have gone awry as we responded to a troll bent on distributing chaos.
The blogs are the only vehicle we have right now for disseminating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sure, you have to sort it out from the diatribes, the jeremiads and the personal opinions, but it is there hiding between thelines.
You can't get anything akin to that truth from our mainstream media, they have much too big a financial stake in extending the political season, for us to trust their perspective opr their reporting.
Which makes these trolls all the more despicable.
They pretend to be something they are not because the truth is not their friend. And since the truth is the blood of the blogs, it is what we all seek here on the toobs, that renders them as only parasites, sucking the blood of the blogs as they hop from site to site spreading their malarial creed of lies.
June 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it is noteworthy that 'michelle's original post was relatively coherent, and had mostly correct grammar and syntax, whereas her subsequent replies have been full of spelling and syntax mistakes.
Moreover, her original post made an argument (though one that was, in my judgment wrong: she seems to be unaware that not just majorities, but super-majorities are necessary for Congress to pass legislation when the President holds the veto power. The Democrats don't even have the 60 votes in the Senate to pass much legislation, much less the 2/3 in both houses needed to override vetoes, so blaming Congress for the last 8, or even the last two years' decisions is rather specious).
There's no way to know for certain, but the evidence suggests that either someone provided 'michele' with the original diatribe, or at least provided a set of thinking points, whereas her subsequent comments are 'her own.'
Those comments deserve a serious and respectful response insofar as they are serious and respectful.
Thus: hear hear! Let's elect veto-proof majorities in both houses. Let's ensure that prudently and cautiously moderate-to-progressive judges enter our Federal court systems.
In contrast: 'michele's seeming confidence that Roe vs. Wade is unimportant and not likely to be overturned with more Republican nominations to the Supreme Court seems unfounded in evidence. Does anyone think that Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts would hesitate a second to overturn Roe, given their nomination hearings? Maybe that would lead, in the longest run, to state-based laws that were just as good, but that's a very high risk to take -- more "worse is better" gambling that I am loathe to try!
June 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent observation, P, this is a pattern now appearing across the blogs.
These are posers who take a professionally framed talking point and run with it, and then in their dull attempts to defend it, they reveal thier own proclivity for the written word to be very suspect, if not laughable.
I realize it is hard to actually sound dumber than Rush, but they seem to manage it. And they aren't very careful about differentiating between their own words and the words of their puppetmasters. When they try to hybridize the pro framing with their own ingorance, we get Michelle Bociurkiw
I think we can safely add this 'michelle' poser to our list of Certified Trolls, it is growing longer every day.
June 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
People are condemned to repeat history not because they forget it, but because they can't forgive it.
June 7, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Succinct and achingly true.
June 8, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Michelle Bociurkiw:
I ask you to read Deanie Mill's post again. What she is talking about is not whether Clinton or Obama would make the better president. What she is saying is that McCain is the wrong choice, compared to either of them, and she tells us why, in no uncertain terms.
The point she is making -- quite clearly -- is that we are currently playing Russian Roulette with our childrens' lives.
Therefore, the only thing that matters is to elect a president who will end the war. I repeat -- the only thing that matters.
McCain is not going to end the war. Period end. He's told us so. He talks to us about bringing the troops home in 2013 -- if, and only if, we have "victory."
How does McCain define Victory? He hasn't told us. How do you define it? You certainly haven't told us.
What you have told us is that you "feel comfortable that McCain will have no choice but to make the right decision.."
I want you to defend that statement. Tell us. What has McCain said that makes you feel that comfort?? I think the young nieces and nephews you mentioned might disagree with your comfort zone; after all, it is not your life on the line, it is theirs -- whether McCain's "victory" is somehow managed by 2013, or within the 100 years he originally mentioned.
Even 2013 is five years away. We have lost over 4000 of our children since the war began five years ago in 2003, as we have over 30,000 who have catastrophic injuries. But, by your reckoning, five more years and 4000 more American dead, and 30,000 more catastrophic injuries, are statistics that fit within your personal comfort zone.So what you are saying is that you feel perfectly comfortable with doubling down on death.
I have seen rude posts on TPM. I have seen crude posts on TPM. But I have never before seen a post on TPM that made me think that the person who wrote it was completely unfeeling... except for the strange comfort she feels in McCain.
Explain yourself.
June 7, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle simply reinforces what I said.
Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't make them progressive. There are lots of racists in the party, and again, using their "anger" about Hillary gives them perfect cover not to support their party now that a black man leads it.
All the excuses in the world can't explain a Democrat voting for McCain over Obama. ESPECIALLY if they claim to be a Hillary supporter.
June 7, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
ohh get real dumb arse if you really think i would use my real name here you are a total idiot. yes there is a reporter but it is mihael and his sister is a film producer in canada. you are all such flakes. i like the names michelle and bociurkiw.
get over it.
June 8, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any reason if they are civil and make guality comments in good faith why they shouldn't be welcomed,
I for one will be waiting for those "guality comments" ....
June 8, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol. not uniform in writing. that is to funny. you mean when i am distracted when working or never editing my posts most days means something. how fascinating. ask your computer savvy what it means. you people are a joke. and as far as your friend in chicago...ask him if he cute enough i could meet him at my favorite moraccan restaurant called tizi melloul's for dinner some evening. i would love to show him just how uncomputer savvy he probably really is.
June 8, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
now you sound like a republican actually. to say someone is racist just because they strongly dislikes obama is funny. i am black. i do not have to like evry black person. that does not mean you are a racist. i means i do not like OBAMA. lol
June 8, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must really suck to be trolling for McCain knowin' ...........
He's gonna lose big time after people get to see him stumble and bumble around the same stage as Barack Obama, (hint shades of ole' Bob Dole .... eh?)
June 8, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never forget. Never forgive.
'Nuff said.
June 8, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must really suck to be trolling for McCain knowin' ...........
He's gonna lose big time after people get to see him stumble and bumble around the same stage as Barack Obama, (hint shades of ole' Bob Dole .... eh?)
June 8, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
i re-read your point...so what your saying is if i am not a progressive democrat that means i am a racist? woah...that is one strong statement i hope you don't really mean that as even more reason i am glad i tore up my DEM ID.
Michelle simply reinforces what I said.
Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't make them progressive. There are lots of racists in the party, and again, using their "anger" about Hillary gives them perfect cover not to support their party now that a black man leads it.
June 8, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
ohh and by the way your friend who is a reporter... if his research on me and the name michelle bociurkiw he has done above is any indication of how thorough his research potential really is ...tell him don't waste his time as he's lousy and assuming way to much from his google name search. there is only one michelle bociurkiw that i am aware of...ME!!!!!!!!!! whose name is a screen name created to post my concerns against obama and support fo hilliary this election.
June 8, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a McCain troll through and through, and not a very bright one.
* Your cut and paste screeds demonstrate you have not digested any facts sufficiently to offer your own ideas
* Your stated goal is to advance a candidate who has already conceded to the nominee
* Your manners are nonexistent, dominating every post with a lengthy, pasted comment that makes no attempt to engage in discussion
* Your agenda is to sow discord in the party
* Your habit of dropping all capitals at the beginning of sentences but capitalizing some names inside of sentences reveals a deliberately affected writing style
* You claim to be and independent, but few if any independents would be attracted to a candidate like Hillary, who disagrees with you about Iraq, immigration, the importance of a Democratic president, the purposes of government, etc. You write: "get yourself a veto proof congress and senate and let there be a GOP president. divided government works for me just fine." I'm quite certain it would.
* You call Mexicans "fruit pickers"
* You write in repeatedly racist tones such statements as "many of the black sites are typically filled with hate...what,s new?"
In other words, you are an idiot who can't spell (but you're not "phased" by your eighth-grade command of English, are you?), can't construct an argument, doesn't like Democrats, blacks, Hispanics or gays, doesn't agree with your own candidate about major issues and has foul breath.
TROLL.
June 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain yourself.
are you asking me or telling me?
strange comfort in mccain...sorry i just don't see him as the boogey man you want to create. never have. most of mccain's schtick has been to clinch his parties nomination. once he wins he will legislate from the middle. he did the same as obama has he has said what it would take to get his parties nomination. same as hilliary. i am comfortable with his previous voting record. he does not control the selection of surpreme court judges or war resolutions. with a predominate dem senate and congress all will be fine.
June 8, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What McCain voting record are you comfortable with?
...sorry. I was thinking of all the time's he's flipfloped, lied and/or forgot about various votes.
What about McCain's record gives you the warm fuzzies?
June 8, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, "Michelle" is the Johnny you should have at home with you, this one should make you feel safe!
And when you get lonely, you can pet him!
http://bp1.blogger.com/_5BH6-f-ymHI/R_mPQN7a_WI/AAAAAAAAARE/Uu2oHg0gMlc/s1600-h/MiniMe-bigger.jpg
June 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain doesn't stand as much of a chance against Obama as Bob Dole did against Clinton,
what ya gonna do then?
June 8, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful diary, Deanie!
The scary thing is, McCain DOES have a lot of people fooled. They see the genial elder statesman and they think "how bad can he be?".
What they miss, what's been buried beneath years of compromise, is the frustrated soldier. McCain spent much of the Vietnam war in captivity. He missed the wrenching strife it brought to our country, seeing only the failed honor of a lost war. John McCain will never see diplomacy as an alternative to battle.
Watch him speak. As wooden as he is, when he says "I will never surrender. never", he means it. He will never surrender, withdraw, back down, or negotiate. He can't, it would be (in his mind) Vietnam all over again.
He will drive our overcommitted military harder than it's yet been driven. He will push our young men and women past the point that a volunteer army can sustain, and I am absolutely certain that a vote for McCain, is ultimately a vote for a draft.
June 8, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President is the one that submits people for the Supreme Court and they have to be defeated. Which isn't an easy thing to do. And even controlling both Houses, the Dems gave up time and again to Reagan. And later even with Bill Clinton and before they lost the majority in 1994, the Dems were not able to get things like universal healthcare or the ban of gays in the military.
And in order to get anything passed, we would need to make it veto proof from the kind of President that McCain would be. And we might not get a veto proof majority in the Senate, so why gamble on that. Not to mention that the Congress contains a number of Blue Dog Dems, so getting them onboard on getting things passed period, will still be work.
The fact of the matter is that the President has shown to be much more important in setting agendas and doing things like, oh starting "military actions" aka wars. Saying that Obama is more militaristic based on one, admittedly pandering speech that he stepped back from at AIPAC from a man like McCain, just shows that you are being intellectually dishonest.
Not to mention that the role of the President has grown considerably, especially under Dubya, so if McCain was in charge, there is no doubt he would wield that, to the detriment of the country. In say, things like warrantless wiretaps.
So vote for McCain, or effectively do so by not voting for Obama, that is your right. But let's not pretend that the Congress will somehow save us from more war. Longer war. More dead. Horrible domestic policies. A reactionary Supreme Court. Yes we need Congress, but we need a Democratic President to work with them, not against them or cowing them.
June 8, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
do i need to repeat that i am moderate dem.. i am sorry i don't have a real problem yet with the surpreme court choices. in all honesty i would rather have a bit of a conservative tilt to it. this country does not need a very liberal surpreme court in my opinion. i am not for gay marriage so that does not stoke in fears in my mind. not really concerned that they will be able to turn over Roe V wade and i find there are other woman's right equally important than abortion rights even though i am pro choice. i elect strong candidates in the congress and senate with some courage. vote out weak arse losers like pelosi and reid... i have no respect for them anyway.
get your veto proof congress and senate and let there be a GOP president. divided government works for me just fine.
June 8, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
do i need to repeat that i am moderate dem.. i am sorry that i don't have a real problem yet with the bush surpreme court choices. in all honesty i would rather have a bit of a conservative tilt to it. this country does not need a very liberal surpreme court in my opinion. i am not for gay marriage so that does not stoke any fears in my mind. not really too concerned that they will be able to turn over Roe V wade and i find there are other woman's rights as equally important as abortion rights... even though i am pro choice. i suggest you folks focus on electing strong candidates for the congress and the senate vote out weak arse losers like pelosi and reid... i have no respect for them anyway.
i can not tolerate mccain nor OBAMA immigration amnesty plan and obama and durbin pissed me the heck off with their pandering to illegals here in illinois. actually i find that just as important as the war.
get yourself a veto proof congress and senate and let there be a GOP president. divided government works for me just fine.
June 8, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey guys, whatever michelle bociurkiw presents herself as, it's clear from her posts that she's more Republican than Democrat, and maybe always has been.
So a Republican is going to vote Republican. It wouldn't be the first time it happened.
June 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
pretty good listing i would say:
The Clinton Campaign could have brought up these, but they didn't and unlike your mostly lies and innuendos, these are facts:
OBAMA AND HIS LIES
1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.
30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.
31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.
32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t.
33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.
34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.
35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.
37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.
38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.
40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.
43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.
44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.
46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.
47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.
48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the Anthem.
49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vain of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.
50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.
51.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - LIAR, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.
52.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - LIAR, your wife’s pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate and the hospital is a Non-Profit Hospital, which made $100,000,000 in the last 3 years. They overcharge blacks VS whites for services, and overcharge everyone in general by 538%!
53.)I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - LIAR, you have known him for 17 years, and decided to do a real estate deal with him during a time when he was proven to be under investigation. Despite this, you divided your property and had them take off $300K before the mortgage problems started. Then Rezko’s wife buys the lot beside it that you can’t afford, saving you $625,000.
54.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - LIAR, you only gave back Hsu ($72K) and Rezko ($150K) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.
55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year.
56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message - hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone, $22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK - that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama.
57.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - LIAR, you are not only connected to Exelon and Rezko, you are also connected to Hillary PAC supporter Mr. Hsu, AND an Iraqi Billionaire of ill repute, Nadhmi Auchi, who ripped off people in the Food For Oil, Iraqi deal. Seems Mr. Auchi may have helped Obama buy his million dollar property long before Obama had millions of dollars. Wonder what favors Mr. Auchi expects, when Obama leaves Iraq free to be taken over by special interests such as him.
58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright’s, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said “Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did.”
June 8, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are aware of Snopes, right?
Because they pretty much debunked that list:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
June 8, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM!!!!! PLEASE!!!! GIVE ME AN IGNORE OPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HATE WASTING MY TIME WITH SUCH CUT & PASTE DRIVEL!
June 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we have here is a genuine troll, a plant, a planter, planting the seeds of doubt with the same old bullshit.
Not this time.
I trust that everyone here, if Obama supporter or Clinton supporter who's just trying to take another good look at Obama, can realize that there are going to be lots of Republicans out and about.
Just as a middle aged man can pretend to be a 17 year old girl on the web, so can a Republican pretend to be a Democrat who just happens to have a lot of doubts about our nominee.
June 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
now i found that on another list. could have been created by a republican troll who knows but it sure was interesting and i thought i would share!
June 8, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, what's interesting is that a well-educated person would blindly accept such a controversial list as "fact".
Doesn't it make you wonder which of the other GOP "facts" you've head are wrong?
June 8, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
i am sorry that i don't have a real problem yet with the bush surpreme court choices.
i am not for gay marriage
i can not tolerate mccain nor OBAMA immigration amnesty plan
Well I'm glad Samuel Alito (the man who fought to keep women out of Princeton doesn't bother You, but with two daughters he bothers the hell out of me.
Jesse Ventura has the best rebuttal to your trying to block rights for people in this country, to wit;
VENTURA: “Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it‘s absurd that fact it‘s even being debated. “
He is spot on here.
I take it your willing to go to California and Florida to pick all the produce that almost exclusively immigrant people pick because the farmers there can't find anybody else to do the work for what they are willing to pay. Trust me after one summer break from college working on a truck farm it ain't the kind of work the vast majority of people decrying immigrants are ever going to step up and preform.
I bet your glad food is relatively inexpensive here, wanna bet that changes if you get your wishes.
June 8, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
now i found that on another list.
It couldn't possibly be a Rush ditto head daily talking points list could it?
June 8, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Campaign could have brought up these,
No they couldn't because they would have been disproved just like "snopes" already did, which would have made it harder for Hillary to maintain she wasn't running a negative campaign.
but they didn't and unlike
your mostly lies
Please list our lies........
and innuendos, these are facts:
No, "snopes' already disproved they are NOT facts but right wing slimy attempts to attack Obama.
but ya already knew that didn't ya?
June 8, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink