Obama Turns It On

by: David Sirota

Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:23

Ben Smith has the video clip of Obama talking about the stimulus bill tonight. He's on his game - and he's finally thrown the Church of Broderism overboard. It's pretty badass.
David Sirota :: Obama Turns It On

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Obama Turns It On | 97 comments
it's pure theater -- at the same time he's handed the whole thing over to that "gang" (3.00 / 8)
who are cutting the job-creating things and adding taxcuts. All of a sudden he cares about Democrats after this whole time of slobbering over the GOP and caving in to all their demands and letting them run the whole show?

CNN is all over it tonight (and not complimenting him)

Who cares about CNN?? (4.00 / 11)
That was the whole point of Obama's speech...the talking heads are irrelevant if you go and call your senator and congressman and make noise to pass the bill. As for the "gang", waaaaaaaaay too premature to even know if they'll be relevant when all is said and done.

Most importantly though, we know that, at worst, going forward Obama has learned his lesson. Yes, the stimulus bill is arguably the biggest bill he'll pass in his first term, but we now know that he won't be all chummy for his entire 4 years, which quite frankly I was fearing.  

[ Parent ]
he hasn't learned anything, except about fickle media -- (3.20 / 5)
he's still being all "chummy" with the GOP and rightwing Dems -- and him rushing this thru has alienated both parties in Congress.

Lieberman and Nelson and Collins and Snowe, etc, are now rewriting and cutting it -- with his wholehearted approval -- not House Dems or even Senate Dems. He's telling Dems to cave in.

[ Parent ]
this is what's going on in reality -- "Bipartisan Push to Trim Size of Stimulus Plan" (2.00 / 2)

A bipartisan group of senators worked furiously in backroom negotiations on Thursday to cut the cost of the more than $920 billion economic stimulus plan. Senate Democratic leaders said they would await the outcome of those talks before calling for a final vote on the measure, perhaps on Friday.

Members of the bipartisan group, led by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said they wanted to trim provisions that would not quickly create jobs or encourage spending by consumers and businesses. They spent much of the day scrutinizing the 736-page bill and wrangling over what to cut. ...

[ Parent ]
What gutting? (4.00 / 3)
The bill actually grew in size today...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
we don't even know what gutting exactly -- they're doing it in private -- (2.67 / 3)

... aides said the group had drafted a list of nearly $90 billion in cuts, including $40 billion in aid for states, more than $14 billion for various education programs, $4.1 billion to make federal buildings energy efficient and $1.5 billion for broadband Internet service in rural areas. But they remained short of a deal, and talks were expected to resume Friday morning. ...

[ Parent ]
hasn't stop you (4.00 / 2)
from jumping to conclusions.  

[ Parent ]
jumping to conclusions is taking 1 speech to House Dems as indicative of (3.00 / 4)
some actual change in a strategy he's been following all along, and is still following.

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 4)
jumping to conclusions is saying "OMG THEY'RE COWTOWING TO REPUBLICANS AND CUTTING EVERYTHING OUT OF THE BILL" and then saying "oh we really don't know what's they're doing"

What is it, do you know what they're doing or do you NOT know.

[ Parent ]
ok I'm starting to think (4.00 / 3)
he could send all the Republicans to Guantanamo and you'd complain he was feeding them too often.

I thought we were upset because he didn't rush this through Congress?  

[ Parent ]
who was upset bec he didn't rush this? (3.00 / 4)
people are upset because of the content -- and Obama's emphasis on getting the GOP onboard far more than what the bill actually contains. He's still doing it.

[ Parent ]
Watch CSPAN (4.00 / 4)
You'll be annoyed at Republican grandstanding, but things today have gone in a much better direction. The bill is actually getting bigger.

I still say it was a mistake for him to pre-compromise, but today the line (and the results) have been "get on board, or get out of the way". Even if the "gang" manages to get their amendment passed, it'll actually still be bigger than the house bill. While they were negotiating cuts, other amendments were getting passed adding to the bill. And the amount they're trying to cut seems to keep getting smaller. And it looks like they have the votes to pass the bill as-is without the gang's amendment.

Today was a much better day.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Amberglow is a PUMA (3.00 / 4)
Amberglow has been treating Obama like the Antichrist ever since the primaries. For months he's been squealing like a stuck pig on Huffpo and Correntewire. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... In amberglow's world, Obama has never done anything right, and he never will. Those of us who are less deranged are able to recognize both strengths and faults in Obama.

[ Parent ]
A puma is a supporter of McCain (4.00 / 3)
Unless you can find a post proving afterglow supported McCain, this is very unfair accusation, and so is the trollrating.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
You're misinformed (0.00 / 0)
Get your facts straight before you pull out your own trollrater. Some but not all PUMAs were McCain supporters. In case you didn't know, PUMA stands for "Party Unity My Ass". Their primary reason for existence was to cast aspersions on Obama and the primary process, so amberglow fits the description perfectly.

[ Parent ]
the primary reason for the creation of puma (4.00 / 3)
was to convince Hillary supporters to vote for McCain.  That is a a fact just look at there websites.

Furthermore nearly all the front pagers are critics of Obama, though they voted for him, so by your standards they are pumas, therefore you are the troll here.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
no -- like every other politician -- (0.00 / 0)
none of them are to be trusted -- and it's their actions that count alone.

and grow up -- "deranged" does not describe me at all.

[ Parent ]
didn't obama lost the CNN election? (0.00 / 0)
why is he president now?

[ Parent ]
Suddenly what CNN says matters? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
dowrated (1.00 / 4)
For being a complete concern troll.

[ Parent ]
I don't agree with the person (4.00 / 2)
but I don't think there is any justification for downrating this person.  The person is not engaging in name calling, or hijacked the thread, and noone has proven they are a mccain supporter or puma.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
No Dem should be at that Senate meeting (4.00 / 2)
This why Reid is such a disaster - any Dem Senator that negotiates with the GOP on cuts to stimulus spending should be out on their ass. Lose chairmanships, whatever.

[ Parent ]
That's not gonna work (4.00 / 2)
Not all of the people in the room are necessarily bad actors. There's gonna be a few centrist Democrats in that room. That's just reality. You can't primary Ben Nelson, you'd just lose the seat. And until 2012, Joe Lieberman is still gonna be a Senator.

You also have to get to 60 votes, which means a few Republicans are necessary. So there has to be some kind of negotiation to get a few of them on board.

Some of the Democrats in that room appear to be there so that the good side gets represented and to make sure the cuts aren't too deep. If it was only Republicans in the room, the amendment they came up with would be much worse, and you'd have to pass it to get them on board to pass the bill at all.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
True that (4.00 / 1)
Totally makes sense and logical thing to do.

Some of the Democrats in that room appear to be there so that the good side gets represented and to make sure the cuts aren't too deep. If it was only Republicans in the room, the amendment they came up with would be much worse, and you'd have to pass it to get them on board to pass the bill at all.

[ Parent ]
No cuts. (4.00 / 6)
It actually is that simple. You have the friggin' president saying it, and people like Krugman saying it. The message to the Senate must be "don't cut the stimulus."

You're operating under the notion that to pass this, we have to give the Republicans cuts? Why? That doesn't compute. The right move is to scare the hell out of the moderates up for reelection in 2010, like Specter, and bribe them with some more tax cuts but hold the line on spending cuts.

If you tell Susan Collins "no cuts" then she has to ask herself whether she really, truly wants to join a filibuster. Instead she's backing US against the wall when it should be the other way around.

Does anyone understand politics any more?

[ Parent ]
We dont have the votes (0.00 / 0)
Its that simple, the moderate collins wanted a 600 billion package and obama talked her over 30 minutes to 800billion+.

You need the votes, simple.

[ Parent ]
They could scare us (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans can argue; "We don't do anything, the economy gets worse and Democrats OWN it and we win"

Collins just won reelection with 61% of the vote after supporting things the voters in her state oppose, what is so scared of?

The Republicans don't seem to care if they lose, look at Santorum, DeWine, Burns, Talent, Coleman, Smith, Sununu, Dole. They don't care if they lose, they're going to go down sticking with what they want. What's the President going to do? veto it?

[ Parent ]
Coleman and Smith (0.00 / 0)
Coleman and Smith just their voting plenty at the end in a vain attempt to look much more moderate.

[ Parent ]
re (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans can argue; "We don't do anything, the economy gets worse and Democrats OWN it and we win"

how can the democrats own it if the republicats create it and then voted no to the democratic solution?

[ Parent ]
Centrist Democrats can keep being centrist (4.00 / 1)
But they shouldn't be going to that meeting. Nobody will lose re-election for not fucking up the stimulus bill.

You're right, primaries won't work against the likes of Nelson. But Robert's suggestion of stripping chairmanships and the like could.

And with no Democrats in the room, the Republican amendment doesn't pass, because they'll have made it stink too much.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
The problem is (0.00 / 0)
get rid of all the problem Democrats, we'd probably be in the minority and running around thinking "God, why can't we win enough seats to take a majority?"

You can't say we didn't do all we can do to build a progressive majority. We supported progressive candidates. In the House, we probably successfull got a progressive majority, but the Senate takes time. Elections are only every 6 years We really didn't winning elections until 2005, we lost quite a few races we probably shouldn't have (Tom Allen, Ned Lamont, Jim Pederson), but we put everything into some great candidates in states where the voters had a clear choice and rejected our point of view; Rick Noreiga, Andrew Rice, Scott Kleeb, Jim Martin. 1/3 of the Senate hasn't been up for election since the Republicans were popular. We have a chance at even more seats in 2010. We need to find true progressives for those, many of those we can win. I said in 2006 that 2008 might be a good year for us because of all the open Senate seats in states Kerry and/or Gore won...of them the only one we didn't win was Maine...we won Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota and New Hampshire, plus Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and Alaska.

Maybe if unemployment was at 20% and there was massive poverty, some of these good guys would've won and we'd have a big progressive majority.  

[ Parent ]
and isn't he still telling Dems to compromise and cave, and not Repubs? (2.67 / 3)
and the yelling about how the bill's portrayed and spun is his own fault -- he's only now selling it to the public and it's too late.

Well, unfortunately... (3.33 / 6)
...since the Senate has Vichy dems and not enough real ones, compromise is inevitable...

But, he has to make up for his previous bipartisanship that was making it difficult to get this thing going....

I thought that it might be too late the other day, but I'm sensing a big sift yesterday and today in the news, and, I think, the public mood... I think he's managing to retake the narrative, which is what is important...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
i think the public has heard far more from him on Wall St than on this bill -- (2.67 / 3)
and all the "NOW! urgent! rush!" stuff we've all heard before -- from Bush trying to push thru horrors.

Congress is not happy with the rushing either -- at all.

[ Parent ]
Weren't you (4.00 / 3)
one of the guys complaining he wasn't ramming this through Congress ignoring Republicans? That he was wasting time negotiating with Republicans instead of taking action?

Now you're upset because it's being rushed too Congress to fast?

[ Parent ]
ignoring the GOP is just common sense -- it's about creating it & changing it to suit them alone -- (3.00 / 4)
and not OUR needs.

It's not about speed. The public didn't make his deadline (and He's the one who originally said it'd be done by the inauguration -- not us).  

[ Parent ]
taking this as some indication he's taking charge of it, or all of a sudden (3.00 / 4)
not being "bipartisan" and hasn't handed it all over to those rightwing fools is just dumb.

it's simply not so.  

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
and He's the one who originally said it'd be done by the inauguration -- not us).

January 4, 2009;

President-elect Obama does not expect to have an economic stimulus package to sign when he is sworn-in on Jan. 20, his spokesman said on Sunday.

"We don't anticipate that Congress will have passed both houses an economic recovery and reinvestment plan by the time the inauguration takes place," Gibbs said.

Gibbs agreed with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.) comments earlier Sunday that any kind of package is unlikely before early to mid-February.


[ Parent ]
go read every single thing he said all thru the fall -- (2.67 / 3)
every single speech on the economy from like Oct thru Dec.

they had to backtrack because it was always foolish.

my point is true -- you would not have had a Gibbs statement to link to if it wasn't for Obama's repeated promises to begin with

[ Parent ]
Oh you mean this (4.00 / 1)

In his first news conference since winning the presidency Tuesday, Obama said Congress must pass an economic stimulus measure either before or just after he takes office in January.

and they didn't, this is Obama's fault because...

[ Parent ]
Why did you troll tae me, Paul? (4.00 / 3)
I don't think I said anything offensive... Perhaps there was a misunderstanding?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Wow..jeez (4.00 / 3)
I swear some of you just like to complain...for a week you were complaining about Obama not taking a tougher stance, and once he does...you start saying its too late, we're doomed. Jeez, either it doesn't take much for you guys to give up on a President or you weren't really with him in the first place. Somehow I think its the latter.  

You guys should listen (4.00 / 3)
to the whole speech. He says time and time again that the size of the bill is the right size, and should arguably be even bigger. Why you guys think he's on the side of those dems who want to cut the bill is beyond me. Obama will have his say once they go to conference.  

[ Parent ]
no -- he doesn't. at all. (3.00 / 4)
... President Obama, while once again urging Congress to act swiftly, avoided taking sides by saying that a package of about $800 billion was in the ballpark of what he believed the economy needed.


[ Parent ]
Look, the problem is (4.00 / 3)
that Obama lost the chance to do the right thing when he first announced the outlines of his proposal: it was, by the reckoning of many good economists, far smaller in size than pretty simple economic logic and math would indicate would be required -- perhaps only half or even a third of the indicated value. The economic problem needed "shock and awe", and it didn't get it.

Obama, after being criticized, started talking about the initial number of $800B as being a "low point" in the range of outcomes he had in mind, and that he envisioned it might go all the way up to $1.3T (a far more adequate number). He seemed to labor under some delusion that the politics of the legislation might allow it to be very aggressively negotiated up. But who was supposed to exert this pressure? The infamously spineless Democrats in Congress?

And where are we in fact at this stage? It looks like we are stuck at $800B, if the Senate "moderates" get their final cuts introduced.

Which means that we may very well be screwed as far as having a bill that will actually solve the problem it's intended to solve.

The deep problem is that some mistakes can't be unmade; bells can't be unrung. This would certainly appear to be such a case. If Obama had had a better instinct -- dare I say more experience -- about how such legislation and "negotiation" might play out, he would never have come up with that quite inadequate initial plan.

This is one crucial instance in which not being ready from Day One may do deep and lasting damage.

[ Parent ]
"more experience" "not ready on Day One" (4.00 / 1)
those sound very familiar.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, those phrases do sound familiar (0.00 / 0)
and were intended to do so.

The point is, we are now seeing the justice of those criticisms.

[ Parent ]
This is what Glenn Greenwald (0.00 / 0)
Called progressives who Obama to fail to say "I told you so"

[ Parent ]
This is Obama failing (4.00 / 3)
The criticisms are damning and bring up unpleasant resonances. But that's because if the stimulus passes in an effective format, it'll be a minor miracle. Obama played his hand very badly and the only reason he might not fail in the stright sense of the term is because the country at large overwhelmingly recognises that the situation is serious.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
You think clinton would have come close to (4.00 / 1)
Doing remotely better? even after her collasal campaign fumbles (not to mention her health care disaster)?


Governing can be messy sometimes, esp with the amount of collasal mess GWB has left behind.

[ Parent ]
Well I know one of thing for sure (0.00 / 0)
President Gravel would've had unemployed down to 0 by now lol

[ Parent ]
I won't pretend to know (4.00 / 2)
just what Hillary might have put together as a stimulus package.

But I do know this: its size and composition would not have been pre-emptively designed to appease the Republicans, as was Obama's. It would not have been presented with any expectation that Republicans might be persuaded to embrace it. From the moment of its introduction, it would have been a battle royale, which Hillary would have been fully anticipating.

Because she knew perfectly well what she was dealing with.

[ Parent ]
Really? (4.00 / 1)
The reason I didn't support Clinton is because the Clintons have exactly this sort of history of pushing mushy centrist policies.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
You complain about Summers (0.00 / 0)
and somehow you don't think he would've found himself in Clinton's eocnomic team?


[ Parent ]
Now we have to find something else (4.00 / 8)
about Obama to complain about.

Seriously (4.00 / 5)
Glenn Greenwald, hardly an Obamabot, had a great line in his last article. He was talking about two groups of progressives, those who think Obama can do no wrong, and those who only critique him and secretly hope he stumbles just to say 'I told you so'. He said they're both sides of the same coin, and just as bad as each other. He was critiquing progressives jumping all over Obama on the LA Times article about renditions.  

[ Parent ]
Well it's obvious (4.00 / 4)
there are progressives who want him to fail...most of that is residual anger from the primaries.

I criticized Obama for some things...Gregg appointment, Elena Kagen for Solicitor General...I don't agree with him at all on Faith-Base intiatives...but some of the "it's over, he's a failure, I'm done with him" stuff has been overkill.

I've learned to stop questioning his judgement from the campaign. I threw in the towel on him one too many times only to be proven wrong; New Hampshire aftermath, Pennsylvania, Rev. Wright, his Hawaiian vacation before the DNC when his poll numbers fell.I conceded that while I'm criticial sometimes, his judgement has historically been better than mine.  

[ Parent ]
there are Americans who want real help, and real job creation, and real progress -- (2.67 / 3)
and who want a govt that actually is most concerned about working for us and most concerned about what's in a bill rather than process.

[ Parent ]
I think some of us (4.00 / 4)
have stopped taking you seriously now. I know I have

[ Parent ]
likewise (0.00 / 0)
we need millions of good jobs -- not billions in bad tax cuts and credits.

[ Parent ]
where is sasha and malia's puppy? (4.00 / 5)

[ Parent ]
Well Obviously (4.00 / 1)
Obama has thrown puppies under the bus.

OT: My brother said the funniest thing today when I was talking about selling progressivism nationwide. He said the blogsphere needs to catchy motto and came up with a funny one;

The Liberal Blogsphere: It's True Because I Said It!  

[ Parent ]
9:17 (part 1) and 8:00 (part 2) youtube videos (4.00 / 2)
While I love to hear him talk like this... (4.00 / 2)
Judd Gregg is so right there

kennedy cannot vote (0.00 / 0)
no kennedy for the stim vote. now we need 3 repubs.

no, still just two (0.00 / 0)
Since Gregg is abstaining and Franken's not seated, cloture only requires 59 votes. So we only need two Republicans.

[ Parent ]
But Gregg's still in office though (0.00 / 0)
so technically he's still a Senator, just a non-voting one like Kennedy.  

[ Parent ]
you just need 3/5 of the ones who vote (4.00 / 1)
So if Kennedy, Franken, and Gregg all don't vote, there are 97 voting Senators. 3/5 x 97 = 58.2. So you'd need 59 Senators to get over 3/5.

Though actually, if Kennedy did vote, you'd still only need 59 votes (since 3/5 X 98 = 58.8), which would mean you'd only need one Republican.

[ Parent ]
That's not right (4.00 / 2)
It's the number of seated senators that matter. There are 99 seated senators right now and you need 3/5th of that number.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Crap, you're right. (4.00 / 1)
Just, um, testing, folks. Just testing.

[ Parent ]
It counts even if they're just absent (4.00 / 1)
I thought it only counted if the seats were vacant

[ Parent ]
Y'know even a moderate stimulus is better than none (4.00 / 1)
even though I would obviously prefer more spending on infrastructure and very little in the way of tax cuts.

But there is still a huge gaping problem in all of this and it goes back to TARP again.

The very same financial institutions being bailed out with taxpayer money are turning around and jacking their credit card customers' interest rates to 30% and above. They are forcing consumers already walking a fine line into default and bankruptcy. And why not when they can make up the loss by raiding the US Treasury?

No stimulus is going to be effective if every cent consumers gain goes to pay credit card and other debt instead of going into the economy. And even if TARP gets banks lending again, consumers' credit ratings will be so bloodied they wont be able to qualify for credit.

If state stabilization funds are excluded (4.00 / 5)
Then the stimulus WILL fail. It really is that simple.

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 1)
The credit card companies like Visa, party owned by the banking media barons Rothschilds, will also collect on all the assets of the people they've bankrupted. So pushing up credit card rates to 30 per cent is fine for them.

But the thing is the government allows this robbery. Bailout money from the taxpayers; pushing up credit card rates. Just go ahead. Rob, rob, rob.

More precisely, Obama allows this robbery.

He's guilty of being part of this crime syndicate.

[ Parent ]
I could only manage a few (4.00 / 6)
"Holy fuck!" 's as I watched. I've been as wary as the rest of you and there will always be a lot of work to do, but I think this Admin just shifted in to high gear.

Haven't heard O this fired up in a while.  

it was a great smack down (0.00 / 0)
Of the obstructionists and media chatterers.

Really amazing. (4.00 / 1)
I feel some hope again.  Indeed, really badass.  Clearly he realizes the BS the Republicans are spewing and hopefully will spend less time trying to appease them and more time passing a good bill.

I'm still really worried about banks; I hope he nationalizes them and boots the shareholders, whose shares are worth in reality pretty much nothing anyway.

Obankster (0.00 / 1)
Obama siddles up to the GOP of Bush that destroyed the US because he is the new front man and continuation of the same crime syndicate.

He is a gangster in Democrat's clothing. Anyone who thought he was genuine, just has to look at his team  (ful of the banksters) and his stimulus bill.

[ Parent ]
You know, I think I recognize this guy (4.00 / 6)
Welcome back, Obama!

cretins (4.00 / 1)
the stimulus bill is an okay bill in an ordinary economy in a recession

it is a disastrous bill in a mafia economy diving into a bigger abyss than the Great Depression and with martial law in place to quell the unrest as society breaks down

if Obama can't tell the difference, he's not fit to be president.

Hillary Clinton is being sidelined by these cretins. That speaks for her credentials in my view.

And .. (0.00 / 0)
As Secretary of State, Hillary's role in fixing the current financial crisis would be ... what exactly?

[ Parent ]
Hilary (0.00 / 1)
If she had been president -- a likely outcome if Obama had not come out of the blue complete with 700 staff and a huge media sheebag and billions from you know who -- she might have considered

- arresting the banksters who created this mess

- nationalising the Fed and restructuring the banks so they can't pull off another scam like it

- creating a financial stimulus package that focuses on creating jobs and a new manufacturing base so America can start producing real wealth and so begin to dig itself out of the hole it is in

- the current stimulus package adds to the US debt with few tangible results. In fact, it will cost 350 billion in interest, adding to the risk of hyperinflation.

Soon, Americans will be finding their dollars are worth nothing. They won't be able to buy a loaf of bread with a month's salary. That is what hyperinflation means.

Cue the banksters Fed: it will introduce the Amero and its gangster buddies will get the Amero first at good rates so they can buy up what's left of the US.

The impoverished Americans will be herded into FEMA camps where there will be no bread for them either as the economy breaks down.

Americans have little sense of history. The horror scenario outlined above is all too possible.

Given the gigantic dangers, radical measures need to be taken and this pork and barrel bankster package is part of the problem and not the solution.

The banksters want to see America go down so they can clean up on the assets. Hillary, I believe, would try to save America.

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
Yep, we're all gonna end up living in caves rubbing two sticks together for fire. If only we had Hillary to save us from the apocalypse!

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but ... (4.00 / 2)
Would she give all Americans a pony?  I mean, given a choice between a traumatizing Obama presidency where I'm going to be herded into a FEMA internment camp and a glorious Hillary presidency of sunshine, happiness, and laughing children, I think she could at least toss in a pony.

[ Parent ]
A pony? (0.00 / 1)
Hilary won't usher in any sunshine.
Americans have to do the work. Americans like you...have to fight for your freedom and your future.
You want a pony? What kind of an attitude is that? You should be asking what you can do not what you can get? You
deserve your internment camp.
Ask the FEMA guards, the blackwater guards, if they'll give you a pony.

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (4.00 / 1)
I'm afraid you're kinda muddying the waters for me here. I mean, bad guys don't give you ponies.  Ergo, if FEMA and Blackwater were to give me a pony, then they couldn't be bad.  QED.

If they gave me a pony and made me go to camp, then logically it would be more like summer camp than an internment camp. And let's face it, given a choice between hard work or summer camp with a pony, I think we both know what most thoughtful, intelligent people would pick.

[ Parent ]
Apparently (0.00 / 0)
That how Hillary was "side-lined" - first by losing the nomination, now by being taken out of the Senate and made Sec. of State. :)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
If Obama seeks to be a change agent (4.00 / 2)
he has to realize he is in enermy territory.

He should get out on the road and be amognst the people, where his power base is.

Obama Turns It On | 97 comments

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox