Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Odog11: "According to Obama the jackals have been around for "28" years, not 8..."
Hello, Republican guy. What quote or statement are you referring to? And why?
I felt proud of my own diverse background.
All I could think during her speech was, how many little girls and boys are seeing this and believing they can be great. Far more than when I was growing up, I'm sure....
Well done, she nailed it. Top that Cindy McCain!!!!
Gave the greatest speech of all time. Until the next time either Obama gives a speech.
I suppose Smith would prefer a firy dialog detailing how fucked up this nation can be - how blacks like her have suffered and how White America just can't wit to keep her down - and then this grownup nation of ours would have a careful and thoughtful conversation on race...
Don't be a fool, Smith - Obama did what she had to do - and I'm surprised that Triaster missed the dig at Hillary - which I can't find in the prepared speech handout, but which I recall from the live event - she said something to the effect of women who make it not because of who their husband is, but because of who THEY are...
spooky world, is it? Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg is said to have been offered the ambassadorship to St. James' Court if Obama wins the presidency. Her grandfather, Joseph, wasn't exactly a wow with the British as he was regarded as a Nazi-appeaser but it's nice to see Caroline carving out a career for herself at the age of 50, all on her own merits, of course.
Maybe you should take a powder, Hutman. This "apparatchik" role, popping up here and there to clobber anyone who dares to utter anything you don't like, seems to be getting to you. Your auxiliaries are doing their best but "droll" hardly covers it in their case.
Incidentally, I don't wear a wig nor do I need to as Mother Nature was bountiful to me. However, for women who've had chemotherapy I can see that wigs might be recommended but, personally, I'd prefer to wear a turban. However, under no circumstances, would I consider wearing the hair of some poverty-stricken woman from Asia or elsewhere for no other reason but vanity. Exploitation of Third World women doesn't commend itself to me. Rebecca Traister and the Salon feminists might consider an article on the way western women are quite willing to ignore the circumstances and conditions in which their poorer sisters are prepared to sacrifice their own beauty for the glamorisation of others.
Falhaar: "I'm not pretending that I'm a genius or that I know something that others don't. I am, however, looking to dampen your hopes that Obama or the Democractic Party are going to be any different to the previous administration."
Again, why? I mean, you really are just being self-congratulatory if you think you're telling people something they don't know. Where in Rebecca Traister's article does it suggest that Obama is going to change the entire ballgame? Which post here made such an assertion or implication? Nothing did. You're arguing against a phantom of your own imagining, and then patting yourself on your back for it. It's wankery.
Falhaar: "The only thing which made the Bush administration "worse" than others was their utter incompetence at keeping some of their hideous authoritarian activities secret."
You seem to be underestimating the Bush administration's incompetence and their other failings. You might have noticed that they conspired to start a war that has not gone so well.
Falhaar: "I guess I just don't see it as cynical to point out that Obama is no different to any other politician."
Whether you define it as cynical or not, what is the relevance of this (quite obvious) statement to this article about Michelle Obama's speech?
Falhaar: "I also don't see that he brings anything fresh or new to either the party or to politics."
Okay, then please describe a theoretical political candidate whom you would consider as bringing something fresh and new to politics. Let's hear your description not in terms of what Obama is not, but in terms of what you're positively looking for.
Falhaar: "He's charismatic, youthful and a stupendous orator, sure, but that's just surface."
If you can't see that there's something going on under the surface, then it's your own fault for not looking.
Falhaar: "What is actually different about his approach to leadership, government or policy?"
Again, nobody is claiming he's going to change the entire paradigmn of politics. You made up a straw man so you could feel smart knocking it down. Obama does, however, show signs of having more principle than most of the politicians who have climbed as far as he has up the ladder. His approach to leadership does seem to be more inclusive and respectful than most, but he also seems to have some backbone at the same time. His approach to policy seems to be a sort of principled pragmatism, but undoubtedly he is going to have to (and already has) dilute some of that principle to get things accomplished. I don't think you've been following the race very closely for very long if you really need to ask these questions.
Falhaar: "I suppose I just chose this article because it was the straw that broke this camel's back in terms of salon's blatantly uncritical analysis of somebody who's got a good chance of wielding executive power for the next four years."
If you really think Salon's been uncritical of Obama then you CLEARLY have not been reading it for very long or very closely.
Falhaar: "Yes, my point is that elections are a charade. We need to see why that is and correct it."
People have been making this point for eons. We're not going to correct things in a forum about whether Michelle Obama did a good job with her getting-to-know-you speech.
Falhaar: "I'm not trying to be cynical, but I am tabling my opinion that many of the issues that both liberals and this website are concerned with will not and cannot be solved by party politics."
You're arguing a phantom. Nobody is claiming that party politics will solve everything.
Falhaar: "I apologise if I came across as a bit too militant there..."
Okay, apology accepted then. You can write whatever you like in here, really. They don't edit much. You can write a manifesto about how American party politics is all a sham. Much of it would probably be true. I just don't see why THIS article is "the straw that broke the camel's back." You want Salon to be more critical. But of what? Of Michelle Obama's speech? Or of Barack Obama himself? They've dissected him from every possible angle, as has much of the media. They've examined the moles on his buttocks and found reason to suspect their patterns might suggest a plot for world domination. So I'm not sure what else you want.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
