Obama '08?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Finn, you're making foxfyre/cjhsa/okie look rational; not really a good sign.

So you don't know what the f*ck your silly ass comment meant either?

actually it meant that such as yourself find extreme corruption such as Agnew attractive simply because they says things (written by William Safire) as sexy.

You silly old fart Dys.

Brand X wrote:

I don't think that band could draw that many people on their own...nor could Obama in that setting.

But in that area where the left of the left dwell I can certainly see the buzz getting to fever pitch about that band and being free...the weather looked perfect too.

Still mostly misleading that it was an Obama draw.

Yep, if 75,000 people came to see:

A) a relatively obscure indie band that normally draws 500-1,000 people and never had a top 30 album and

B) the charismatic, Democratic presidential nominee to be,

then it's surely "mostly misleading" to infer that, you know, those people came for the Democratic presidential nominee to be.

Right? Or, maybe, you know, not?

(In other words: Brand X, you can't be serious here, can you? Silliness.)

Seriously. the prospect of Barack Obama as the next POTUS is obviously causing some of these fools to come unhinged.

Amusing in a kind Jerry-Springer-those-fools-will-say-anything kind of way.

It happens with bands like that....it isn't so rare.

Brand X wrote:

It happens with bands like that....it isn't so rare.

Really? So then you wont have any trouble mentioning a few other recent relatively obscure indie bands that normally drew 500-1,000 people and never had a top 30 album, which suddenly, overnight, without scoring a hit song or anything like that, two years after the appearance of their last CD, drew a crowd of 75,000?

Or, you know, considering Obama has drawn crowds of tens of thousands before, as recently as last month in fact, maybe the Decemberists support act beforehand is not the most logical explanation for why 75,000 people came to listen to Obama?

I'm having trouble even conceiving of the kind of stretch you're grasping for here... I'm guessing you're just stirring the pot, because surely this cant be something you're saying with a straight face.

It's likely that we'll never know for sure who drew the most people.

In other news, when Hillary does a post-primary fundraising event next month in North Carolina and Bear kindly offers to do a show beforehand, we will never know who really drew the five thousand people attending - Hillary, or our own Bear?

nimh wrote:

Brand X wrote:

It happens with bands like that....it isn't so rare.

Really? So then you wont have any trouble mentioning a few other recent relatively obscure indie bands that normally drew 500-1,000 people and never had a top 30 album, which suddenly, overnight, without scoring a hit song or anything like that, two years after the appearance of their last CD, drew a crowd of 75,000?

Or, you know, considering Obama has drawn crowds of tens of thousands before, as recently as last month in fact, maybe the Decemberists support act beforehand is not the most logical explanation for why 75,000 people came to listen to Obama?

I'm having trouble even conceiving of the kind of stretch you're grasping for here... I'm guessing you're just stirring the pot, because surely this cant be something you're saying with a straight face.

It's likely that we'll never know for sure who drew the most people. The concert was advertised on Obama's site as well as the bands.

Completely off-topic, Brand X, your avatar looks so ... Soviet!

Quote:

American Idol and American Politics

[..]


So you have the woman candidate who is a determined survivor even though it was pretty clear early on that she would not be the winner (winners don't keep being sent to the endangered zone).

Count me confused... how is this supposed to be a parallel to Hillary Clinton, the "inevitable" candidate who started out with a lead of hundreds of superdelegates and thought she'd be easily able to knock out the opposition by Super Tuesday?

She had all the establishment support and started out as by far the favourite to win, and only lost when she squandered massive amounts of money and foolishly decided she could skip the caucuses because she'd win without them too. But we're supposed to see her as the hardy underdog who fought her way through against all expectations?

Harumph.