Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reading your posts on this thread made me increasingly annoyed. You're just another embittered Clintonista who can't get over the fact that she LOST in the primary season, and now you're all about tearing down Obama, his advisors and staff, and his supporters in any way possible. You labor under the delusion that Obama, all his advisors, all his campaign staffers and managers, all his supporters and volunteers (except for those who came from the Clinton side after the primary) , are filled with a seething hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton and anything and everything associated with them, and that Obama's supporters are largely just cult worshippers. These are wildly off-base and unfair accusations. I could write out a lengthier refutation of them, but I have neither the time nor the energy (nor the patience, frankly) right now to do so. And, really, why bother? You're not open to argument anyway, and will only see what you want to see.
To borrow (and paraphrase) a line from Obama himself from one of the presidential debates: The fact that you continue to bring these things up, over and over again, says much more about you than it does about us.
But, I am curious. It sounds from your posts as if you actually voted for Obama in the general election. That is, by your own account, you voted for a sexist, race-baiting, transparent lightweight who hated your beloved candidate, Hillary Clinton, and her husband with a burning passion. May I ask why? If you truly are in NY, then your vote for Obama wasn't needed and didn't matter. Why didn't you write in your golden girl, or vote 3rd party in protest? Hundreds of thousands of embittered Clinton dead-enders in New York like you could have written her in, voted 3rd party, voted for McCain, or stayed home and you know what? Obama still would have won New York by a crushing margin. So why didn't you stick with principle and make a statement, rather than meekly falling in line to vote for a Democratic nominee whom you clearly despise?
"it doesn't seem as though Clinton is to blame."
Why are you defending clinton? is there an attack on her about this? no. why do you assume obama leaked the info? don't drag the primary into this admin. obama is moving forward, clinton seems to, as well. why don't we all?
"That doesn't seem like the Obama we've come to know, who appears to be a person of courage and integrity."
Your kidding right?
Obama has lied and changed his positions on every single issue since the beginning of the campaign.
He smeared Hillary and Bill racists, he encourages discrimination against gays, he favors record corporate welfare, and now we have him rewarding Leiberman (someome who campagined for Republicans).
Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Obama are destroying everything the Democratic Party once stood for.
Joan,
It's very disappointing indeed. I feel like here we go again. They got elected and the hill with us. We gave them money, our time, worked our hearts out to get them there and they are like: where else we-the base- are going to go????? First Emanuel, then Holder, Clinton, & God only knows who is next...maybe Sarah Palin for DOE ( she “claimed" knowledge of energy). Of all people for DOS Barack is picking Clinton...the hawkish darling of the newcons....Does anyone here believe if Clinton got the DOS job there will be any "significant, meaningful changes in the foreign policy in the next 4 years) except maybe some window dressing for some marginal issues. But the most disappointing of all was Lieberman. That was really a stab in the back. Barack handcuffed all Dems in the senate when he said he wants him back in. Does anyone here believe Zionist Lieberman will stop his demagoguery about Iraq or his sacred mission to get us in a another war with Iran. Speaking of Iran: Clinton singed on the authorization that was sponsored by Zionist LIEberman to gave Bush a green light to go to war with Iran.
I am wondering what change did I Donate ,work , and voted for.
Should I assume you are planning to sexualize and demean the President with your next post (maybe a clumsy metaphor about a python?), or is such low, crass treatment reserved for female residents of the White House only?
You are an enemy to women everywhere. Until you admit your egregious decision yesterday, I can't even concentrate on anything else you say.
Your employees are probably afraid to tell you what a horrible choice it was to feature an article about the First Lady's ASS, so let me do it: you should be ashamed of yourself.
Does the situation in Israel ever bother you? Could we have someone in State who cares as much about the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel as they do about everyone else?
What have you been smoking?
The Left has a better chance with the RNC than the DNC. They just need to wear a flag lapel pin and carry a bible and they could even run for office.
There is a fellow named Larry Sinclair who can fill you in on those details that you desire to know but I doubt that his story will be published here.
Joan,
When I heard that quote initially, my impression was that it was meant as a lament, not gloating. Are you sure that you have the tone right? I agree with the overall thrust of your piece.
Yes, I'm still trying to figure out what I want to post on Open Salon :).
your right-wing troll/provocateur posing as leftist progressive Clinton lover and Obama critic shtick is getting really, really old and tiresome.
As if HRC would have been any more "progressive" on the issues you listed than Obama is. Keep dreaming! She's the very definition of a DLC-type centrist accommodationist, and she's further to Obama's right on national security issues! Oh, BTW, she's opposed to gay marriage but supports civil unions, just like Obama, so I guess in your estimation that makes her a homophobe who promotes intolerance and discrimination against gays, just like you think Obama is.
And as for "destroying everything the Democratic Party once stood for", plenty have argued that this process reached its peak under President Clinton, when the conservative DLC was running the show and abandoned any pretense of a progressive economic agenda, trashed welfare, went hard to the right on criminal justice issues, and much more. What the Democratic Party stood for during the Clinton presidency was a slightly watered down, more palatable GOP agenda. Republicanism with a smiling face, IOW. Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama may be carrying on that tradition, but they hardly started it.
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
