In this morning's editorial the Brokeback Beacon tells Hillary…."I just can't quit you"…..
This newspaper still thinks Hillary Clinton would be the better president. Yes, she has pandered relentlessly calling for a summer of relief from the federal gas tax. Worth attention is the larger theme that she has struck, the undue burden carried by the middle class, especially in view of a tax code that has favored increasingly the wealthy. All of it has been part of her speaking more comprehensively about what would drive a Clinton presidency. She has become a stronger candidate and a more effective leader.
Notice the thought processes of the Brokeback Beacon editorial. Hillary is a panderer, basically a person who will say anything to voters in order to get their votes, Obama is not a panderer…..but the Brokeback Beacon simply can't quit the panderer, choosing instead to argue that the non-panderer wouldn't make as good a president as the panderer.
Pandering is lying. Pandering is saying whatever people want to hear whether the speaker has any intention of fulfilling any of the promises or not. Obama has refused to lie. Hillary has been called out numerous times for making stuff up.
Why does the Brokeback Beacon editorialist think that Hillary's lying shouldn't disqualify her? "..the larger theme she has struck, the undue burden carried by the middle class, especially…a tax code that has favored the wealthy…" The truth, of course, is something else entirely. Not only has Hillary DISAGREED with Obama's plan to raise capital gains taxes, lowered unjustly and unfairly by Bush Buffoons …..but she also disagrees with Obama over lifting the payroll tax cap on Social Security wages. Both of Hillary's positions here are no different from John McCain's. Perhaps THAT is what the Beacon writer meant by "the larger theme she has struck".
Then the Brokeback Beacon writer, still swooning for Hillary, writes this….
The talking heads of the media often have swooned for Obama.
I have been paying attention to this primary. The media hasn't "swooned" over Obama for months. The reason is simple and straightforward. Hillary was the frontrunner even before the election cycle began. Main media always attacks the leading Democratic frontrunner, never a Republican frontrunner as we see with McCain…..but always the Democratic frontrunner. They attacked Hillary early because they thought she would be the Democratic nominee. Then after Obama's 11 victories in a row, the main media began savaging Obama. Not "swooning"….savaging. The savaging still goes on. If anything is true…..the last month has seen the main media superassholes shilling for Hillary.
And finally, from today's Brokeback Beacon script, we find the wingnut theme of, "What about Florida and Michigan?"…..
The national party bungled the issue. Obama ducked new primaries. Link
Assertions like that shouldn't be in an editorial in a city's only newspaper. Somehow, Brokeback Beacon writers have bought into the wingnut controversy over two states which defied Democratic National Committee rules. According to the Beacon, the Democrats "bungled the issue". How so? No explanation…..only an assertion. They just did. Both candidates, Obama and Clinton, agreed months ago that Florida and Michigan primaries would not count. Even if Hillary were able to count those two states, she STILL can't win the nomination fair and square. Brokeback Beacon is simply buying into the wingnut bullsh*t.
Sore losers can really be sore…..and that's what the Brokeback Beacon is after Tuesday's primaries. Obama hasn't "ducked" anything. Barack Obama has stated repeatedly he will abide by the rules. Abiding by the rules is, to Brokeback Beacon writers, "ducking new primaries". Hillary (and George W. Bush), on the other hand, never met a rule that couldn't be overruled for their own benefit or ideology. Sticking to a framework of previously agreed upon rules, laws, conditions……is a bad thing according to the Beacon writer….that's "ducking" something.
When all is said and done this election cycle, the Beacon editorialists will be endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama for president. There won't be any good reasons then either, just as there are no good reasons to still be shilling for a pandering, do-and-say-anything-to-get-elected, Hillary Clinton now.
Apparently the Beacon just can't quit their allegiance to the establishment status quo.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
-Nobody panders better than Obama, even if it means throwing his longtime mentor under the bus while glossing over legitimate racial issues.
-Who cares what they agreed upon before the primary. What if Romney, McCain and Ron Paul agreed not to count any votes west of the Mississippi during the GOP primaries? Would you call that democracy if it was written into the GOP rulebook? Obama pulled his name from Mich., precisely to remove millions of American voters from the process.
In addition to ducking a revote, Obama ducked more debates after he got it handed to him in the last one.
I thought his speech on race was excellent, but since that time he has revealed himself to be a pandering weasel with very weak character.
That would be 0 for 4 there my buddy.
1) Obama sought to deal with the Wright situation righteously. First, he answered all the questions and rejected the stuff Wright said. You know that. Then he made a great speech, as you mentioned, not glossing over anything. You know that too. Then Wright sought to make it all about himself. Obama rejected Wright, once viewed as a pastor, now seen as an opportunist. I would do the same. Obama and The Reverend approach problem solving the same way.
2) All of the Democratic primary candidates knew about, and accepted the Democratic Party rules going in. To say Obama pulled his name out because he wanted to remove voters in Michigan is just silly. His name was never in.
3)He didn't duck anything. He doesn't make the rules. I know conservatives are used to making everything up as they go along, like Iraq, but Obama and the Democrats, fundamentally, try to follow the rules.
Nothing left to debate. At least not anything the Knee Padders would be interested in. Dipstick Charlie Gibson and the dwarfish George Stephanopolous proved what the corporate media pricks have in mind for Obama. No need for any more of the stupidity. It's a national embarassment.
4)"pandering weasel with very weak character"
You're kidding me right? I mean, you're pulling my leg on this entire comment….you gotta' be.
The American voters, as I told you, ain't buyin' the bullsh*t anymore. It's over. They realize what the media is doing. Just wait and see what happens in November. The GOP will be destroyed.
I agree with them. She would make for a better president than he would.
We all love these blogs and online sources of information, However the majority of voters don't even know what blogs are. Please everyone, Write and Write Often letters to the editor of every newspaper and publication, Call into talk shows, We must expose the Inexperienced, Egomania Diseased, Corrupt, Power Monger Obama Bin Liar and those he is a Puppet for to all Americans. Please enlighten all of America on the Facts the Media won't talk about, Please do not let Oprah and the Media dictate the outcome of this very important election. Please everyone Write Now and Often, Over & Over repeat the Facts describing the very real dangers the Power Monger Obama Bin Liar represents. Obama > " I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction " Please Write Now and Often, Cause the winds to shift for Obama Bin Liar !!!
Considering Obama's take on Supreme Court nominations, my 11th grade government class teacher would make a better president than Obama.
He's the Harvard graduate. I agree with his take on the Supremes.
As soon as you can find "strict constructionist", you know, in the Constitution, then a discussion could be had. Until then, there is only opinion.
Bush is a Harvard grad too, isn't he?
C student….yeah.