Obama '08?

Democrat Taylor Marsh on Michelle Obama's controversial remarks:

To update from the show, yes, words do matter. You say what you mean the first time out. When it comes to talking about your country, especially when representing someone who wants to be president, you shouldn't have to have an interpreter put out a press release to explain what you actually meant, when what you really said was an insult. Why do Republicans always get this stuff, but Democrats come across like amateurs? Point to McCain.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Democrat Taylor Marsh on Michelle Obama's controversial remarks:

To update from the show, yes, words do matter. You say what you mean the first time out. When it comes to talking about your country, especially when representing someone who wants to be president, you shouldn't have to have an interpreter put out a press release to explain what you actually meant, when what you really said was an insult. Why do Republicans always get this stuff, but Democrats come across like amateurs? Point to McCain.

Taylor Marsh may be the most pro-Hillary shill on the web. So, grain of salt and all that.

Cycloptichorn

Obama worked with terrorist
Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2008
5:44 pm Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM - The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2001.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.........................

Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

Yeah, WorldNetDaily is where I go for the authoritative news. On everything.



You guys crack me up, honestly. Who cares about a comment that Obama's wife made? Nobody but rabid right-wingers who are struggling to find a line of attack to use this fall.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, WorldNetDaily is where I go for the authoritative news. On everything.



You guys crack me up, honestly. Who cares about a comment that Obama's wife made? Nobody but rabid right-wingers who are struggling to find a line of attack to use this fall.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the WorldNetDaily article was wrong?

re lapel pin and proud of country

Martin, at Politico, echoes a concern which I'm trying to keep up front in folks' thoughts...


And note below how Kristol heads up his column referencing this 'they don't really love our country/they aren't real patriots' meme that the right is and will continue to pump out.

Note also how he weaves it together with an attempt to minimize or erase Obama's unique and broad appeal to Americans.... his charisma isn't really about you voters at all, it is, Kristol tells us in his title, "All About Him"... your attraction or devotion to this man, your Obamania, should be questioned because it's real function is to pump up his and Michelle's egos. These two are not, Kristol suggests, humble or much interested in anything but self-aggrandizement. Who does this remind Kristol of?

Quote:

Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

George, who spoke with an appealing American intonation, holding the emphasis back to the last syllable of each word, was a deliberate orator. He was simple, he was sentimental; and, like the best avant-garde Americans, he was fifty years behind the times in most of Europe. But he was not a shy man, had no scruples about appealing to his friend The Creator, or calling on the eternal verities, Liberty, Justice and Truth. He gave to politics the powerful orchestration of religion.

blatham wrote:

re lapel pin and proud of country

Martin, at Politico, echoes a concern which I'm trying to keep up front in folks' thoughts...


And note below how Kristol heads up his column referencing this 'they don't really love our country/they aren't real patriots' meme that the right is and will continue to pump out.

Note also how he weaves it together with an attempt to minimize or erase Obama's unique and broad appeal to Americans.... his charisma isn't really about you voters at all, it is, Kristol tells us in his title, "All About Him"... your attraction or devotion to this man, your Obamania, should be questioned because it's real function is to pump up his and Michelle's egos. These two are not, Kristol suggests, humble or much interested in anything but self-aggrandizement. Who does this remind Kristol of?

Quote:

Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

Do you see anything inherently false or dangerous in all this Blatham? Do you consider that Kristol was necessarily acting in a nefarious way by raising the question of the element of self-obsession in the whole Obamania phenomenon? Or alternatively is this an entirely legitimate point for public discourse?

Yeah, WorldNetDaily is where I go for the authoritative news. On everything.



You guys crack me up, honestly. Who cares about a comment that Obama's wife made? Nobody but rabid right-wingers who are struggling to find a line of attack to use this fall.

Cycloptichorn

Michelle Obama Does Not Speak for Me

The love I have for this country does not depend on a political campaign predicated on the notion of "change."

The love I have for this country does not depend on one person, certainly not some politician with a slogan that others have used, which he has re-used.

The love I have for this country does not depend on aiding the winning of someone for president, without a clue what he or she is offering in the guise of one word, "change."

The love I have for this country does not depend on ignorance of what patriotism requires to serve a personal goal.

My uncle Dick certainly didn't serve his country and get battle fatigue in WWII so people could pick and choose pride in this nation based on personal association to some politician, forgetting the greater glory we all serve through our country's ideals.

My husband, a blue collar man, doesn't support our cause 24/7 because he believes one politician is the answer, or that this moment a deliverer has presented himself through the notion of "change." This blue collar family expects politicians to offer solutions, THAT'S RIGHT, SOLUTIONS, not words or promises of "change."

The love I have for my country does not include following yet another political huckster down a path where he gets the glory he craves, while my blue collar family gets the shaft... again.

The love I have for this country knows no political party bounds.

The love I have for this country also does not require allegiance to some woman's husband, who people have declared the political Messiah in a nation that requires none, because WE THE PEOPLE will save ourselves, provided some political incompetent doesn't think unity is more important than the Democratic ideals that have proved important to us all.

The love I have for this country means that I will walk through the fires of hell to keep someone unqualified for the presidency of the United States from acquiring that position, successful or not and regardless of what it costs me personally, which doesn't matter one whit compared to this nation I hold dear. I will not swear allegiance to any person who offers platitudes in the disguise of the presidential, on the wings of some amorphous promise of "change."

The love I have for this country makes me an American first, a Democrat second. Never before in my life have I been more aware of this fact than I was after I thought long and hard about Michelle Obama's comments, not able to brush them aside, though that was my first instinct and said so, only to hear her words flash before me again and again, finally causing something to rise up deep inside me to scream NOT THIS AMERICAN.

Michelle Obama does not speak for me.

Proud to be an American, after forty plus years, because of some "change" that's promised, but not described?

I've been proud to be an American my whole life. It doesn't depend on some personal attachment to someone I'm trying to elevate to leader, through some word that he has not yet defined.

The love I have for this country has nothing to do with Michelle Obama's Me-Me-Me mantra. The narcissistic, self centered, arrogant insult delivered by Michelle Obama, representing a man who hopes to talk his way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is a slap at the American spirit that runs throughout this country, regardless of political party, race, gender, creed, religion, you name it, and the word "change" alone can't alter the course on which we are disastrously careening without a plan.

I am a proud American first. A liberal second. But Michelle Obama will never speak for me. Not until I know the definition of "change" that's being offered amidst a record that doesn't come close to measuring up to all the endless talk.



UPDATE: The New York Times quotes my piece today, as do others. It's really remarkable that people can't understand why someone, even --insert shock & dismay here-- a liberal, would find Michelle Obama's comments insulting and unacceptable. That's how out of touch some people in the Democratic party have become with people like me and my husband. I've lived in New York City and Los Angeles, traveled the country too (and beyond), but I'm from Harry Truman's Missouri. From where I come from, words like Mrs. Obama's are not only objectionable, but unacceptable. I'm also someone who would know that these words would offend people without having someone to explain it to me and clarify my comment afterwards. Where I come from people don't talk like this about your country. I'm not saying that America is perfect. But I'm proud of what we've done in the world for people everywhere, amidst our mistakes. You have to be terribly out of touch not to get it, or so hopelessly elitist is doesn't register.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27044

It's not that, it's that Kristol is prepared to attack whoever the Dems put up. He could easily have written the exact same column about Hillary. It robs his attacks of legitimacy, b/c it is quite obvious that the driving force behind them is partisan animus, not rational thought.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not that, it's that Kristol is prepared to attack whoever the Dems put up. He could easily have written the exact same column about Hillary. It robs his attacks of legitimacy, b/c it is quite obvious that the driving force behind them is partisan animus, not rational thought.

Cycloptichorn

Well, based on that, I am sure you will then acknowledge the soundness of criticisms of assertions by Obama supporters that their candidate's uplifiting but generally non-specific assertions of the need for "Change" are merely in his self-interest; would be the same regardless of the identity of his Republican opponent; and therefore have no legitamacy; and that the "driving force behind it all is partisan animus, not rational thought".

Alternatively, you could be merely hypocritically partisan yourself.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, WorldNetDaily is where I go for the authoritative news. On everything.



You guys crack me up, honestly. Who cares about a comment that Obama's wife made? Nobody but rabid right-wingers who are struggling to find a line of attack to use this fall.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the WorldNetDaily article was wrong?

Does that even have to be said? They are amongst the most disreputable of all news organizations.

Cycloptichorn

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Oh Noes! George W. Bush Is Teh Secret Vietnamese!

I mean, what other conclusion can you possibly come to after seeing this:



I've been to several foreign countries. Not once did it ever occur to me to dress up like a foreigner. I mean, who does that?

Why else was he so eager to avoid serving in the Vietnam war? So he wouldn't have to kill his comrades! Why did he like what he saw when he looked into Putin's soul? Because, as this photo reveals for the first time, they are both Vietnamese! No matter how much the wingnuts try to scrub and whitewash, some stains just won't come clean.

The Viet Cong were patient. They took the long view. They weren't content to drive us out of their country: they needed to exact a terrible revenge on us, at a time and in a manner of their own choosing. George W. Bush is the instrument of their vengeance.

Suddenly, it all makes sense.

How can you tell what the religion of clothing is?

Taoist - Clothing happens.
Buddhist - Clothing happening is an illusion.
Hindu - This clothing has happened before.
Mormon - This clothing will happen again.
Moonies - Only happy clothing really happens.
Moslem - It is the will of Allah that clothing happens.
Zen - What is the sound of clothing happening?
Hare Krishna - Clothing happens clothing happens clothing clothing happens happens.
Pagan - Clothing is part of the Goddess.
Scientology - Garments occur.
Stoic - So clothing happens; I can take it.
Calvinist - Clothing happens because you don't work hard enough.
Christian Scientist - If clothing happens, pray and it will go away. (Clothing is in your mind.)
Catholic - If clothing happens, you deserve it.
Jew - Why does this clothing always happen to us?
Protestant - Let clothing happen to someone else.
Atheist - Clothing happens for no reason.
Hedonist - There's nothing like a good clothing happening.
Agnostic - Maybe clothing happens, maybe it doesn't. Christian Dior happens.
Jehovah's Witnesses - Let us in and we'll tell you why clothing happens.
Betazed - Are you telling me you're not going to be naked at your own wedding?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, WorldNetDaily is where I go for the authoritative news. On everything.



You guys crack me up, honestly. Who cares about a comment that Obama's wife made? Nobody but rabid right-wingers who are struggling to find a line of attack to use this fall.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the WorldNetDaily article was wrong?

Does that even have to be said? They are amongst the most disreputable of all news organizations.

Cycloptichorn

So, are you saying that NONE of the info in the article is correct?
Are you saying that EVERY piece of info in that story was wrong?

Lets see, ok?

Quote:

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

True, and here is the listing from the Woods fund own annual report...
http://www.woodsfund.org/Folder_1042751691717/Folder_1042752170117/File_1042753151419

So, WorldNet Daily got that right.

So, unless you can prove that the article is wrong, there is no reason to doubt it.