by cjbardy, Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:29:54 PM EDT
I understand Sen. Obama, periodically, when he is feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost his appeal. (parody of Obama) That can be the only explanation for Obama's emotional attack on Sen. Clinton today as detailed in CNN's Political Ticker and on MSNBC.
Obama was described by CNN as "visibly agitated" with his "voice rising", as he responded to Sen. Clinton's retorts to his comments about people in small-town America as being "bitter" about their economic lot, and therefore clinging to religion and guns, as he said; "She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her." Although his response had a shrill component, there was no report of any cackling on his part.
Obama then decided to throw the kitchen sink at Clinton. In a feeble attempt to get back at Clinton and to demean her support of the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, he accused her of "talking like she's Annie Oakley...packing a six-shooter."
Obama went on to note that he has consistently spoken about his support of the Second Amendment ABC News Political Radar. In the interest of accuracy, however, I will note that Obama has stated that he "not in favor of concealed weapons" whereas both Clinton and McCain are opposed to out-lawing them. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 4/2/08. It is noted by CNN that Obama supports a national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions only for retired police and military personnel.
Obama's emotional response and inaccurate attempt to make his position on the Second Amendment comparable to Sen. Clinton's, demonstrates that Obama and his campaign advisors are in a bit of a panic over his recent gaffe, and their fear that he will not be able to count on the vote of small-town America in the upcoming primaries. It also demonstrates that he is not used to the negative media response he is getting now, and doesn't know how to respond.
It most certainly raises serious questions about Sen. Obama's electability in the general election should he be the nominee.
by cjbardy, Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:16:17 PM EDT
I miss Linfar. She is one of those who have been banned and purged in the last day or two. Last night, I went through Google Cache to look for the diaries she has written, which have been purged, along with her comments, from this site. Fortunately, on the internet, nothing is ever really gone for good.
For those of you who miss her, here is the link to her cached User Page here at MyDD. Linfar MyDD User Page
Linfar is absolutely a beautiful writer. I was exceptionally impressed with her last diary "Typical White People"
Some of you may think that is controversial. I don't think so. She didn't come up with that title from thin air. She was parroting something Sen. Obama said. In any event, I believe that it represents a powerful statement from a woman who lived the values that everyone is calling for these days, and points out, through the title, that there is no such thing as a "Typical White Person." Read the article if you haven't read it before, and if you have read it, its worth a second read. Here is the link. Typical White People
You may not like what Linfar has to say, but as Democrats/Liberals/Progressives you should all be willing to listen to her. Disagree loudly if you must, but don't push out people with opinions who are different than yours. We all lose when that happens.
Please bring Linfar back!
by cjbardy, Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EDT
In a new ad running in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama claims that he does not "take money from oil companies or lobbyists." Throughout his campaign, he has tried to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton, because she does take money from PACs and lobbyists, stating that he doesn't take money from those sources because he doesn't want "any strings attached."
Listen to the ad for yourself.
by cjbardy, Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:29:22 PM EDT
As I recall, Monica Lewinsky and her "blue dress" have not been an issue for about eight years. So, you can imagine my surprise when I check out The Page - by Mark Halperin - Time
and read that Obama Senior Advisor Gordon Fischer decided that now would be a good time to remind us about it.
I followed the link and saw that this story has already been picked up by Jake Tapper at ABC. Tapper quotes Fischer as follows.
"When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently (sic), the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP. Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."
Can someone please explain to me why rehashing an event from nearly a decade ago is at all relevant to bolster a stab at Bill Clinton that even Obama's own campaign has already denounced? If someone could, I would be greatly appreciative. The hypocrisy in Obama's campaign makes me feel like my head is about to explode!
by cjbardy, Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM EDT
I just read through Sen. Obama's speech two times although I will confess, I did not listen to it. To preface the remainder of my remarks, I tried to read it without any political agenda, and although I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I believe I was able to give it a fair reading. I found that as I read it, I agreed with the sentiments he expressed, and indeed found them quite eloquent and powerful, until he got to the end of the following paragraph.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.